This article exists as part of the online archive for HuffPost India, which closed in 2020. Some features are no longer enabled. If you have questions or concerns about this article, please contact indiasupport@huffpost.com.

Delhi Riots: Judge Says Police Witness Statements At Odds, Grants Bail To Murder Accused

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat wrote, “There is no CCTV footage of the incident of the present FIR where the applicant could be identified.”
Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel patrol the lanes at Shiv Vihar, Mustafabad, on March 1, 2020, in New Delhi, India.
Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel patrol the lanes at Shiv Vihar, Mustafabad, on March 1, 2020, in New Delhi, India.

NEW DELHI — While granting bail to one Aatir, accused of murder in a Delhi riots case, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said the Delhi Police did not have CCTV footage of the alleged incident of mob violence, and the police witness — also the injured person in the case — who named the accused in his statement on 4 April 2020, did not do so in his previous statement on 9 March, 2020.

In a bail order dated 6 November, Rawat wrote, “There is no CCTV footage of the incident of the present FIR where the applicant could be identified.”

“It is also relevant that the said witness in the previous statement recorded on 09.03.2020 has not named the present applicant,” he wrote.

The incident relates to alleged stone pelting at police personnel and mob violence that resulted in one Rohit Shukla sustaining a gunshot injury on the night of 24 February at Maujpur Chowk.

The Delhi Police says that 751 criminal cases have been registered in connection with the Delhi riots.

Last week, while granting bail in a riots case to Khalid Saifi, a businessman and social activist, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav at the Karkardooma District Court said that there was no CCTV of Khalid Saifi, and the statement given by the police witness did not prove that he was part of any conspiracy to instigate the riots.

“In my humble opinion, charge-sheeting the applicant in this case on the basis of such an insignificant material is total non-application of mind by the police which goes to the extent of vindictiveness,” Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav at the Karkardooma district court said in his order.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Suggest a correction
This article exists as part of the online archive for HuffPost India, which closed in 2020. Some features are no longer enabled. If you have questions or concerns about this article, please contact indiasupport@huffpost.com.