2019 rioting case: Delhi HC seeks police response in activist Asif Iqbal Tanha's plea challenging charges against him
Justice Sanjeev Narula, issuing notice, posted the matter for consideration next on October 13.
Two other accused in the case — activist Sharjeel Imam and Jamia student Chandan Kumar — have also challenged the framing of charges against them by a trial court, with their petitions also pending before the Delhi High Court. The high court is due to consider all these pleas on October 13.
While framing charges against the accused, the trial court, in an order on May 7, observed, 'Accused Sharjeel Imam was not only an instigator, he was also one of the kingpins of a larger conspiracy to incite violence.'
Imam and Tanha were charged under sections related to abetment, criminal conspiracy, being part of an unlawful assembly, and rioting with a deadly weapon of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, among others.
According to the chargesheet filed in this case, 41 vehicles, including government vehicles, were damaged and set ablaze by a mob of hundreds in New Friends Colony. It also stated that 10 police officers were injured, including a station house officer (SHO) who sustained grievous injuries.
Fourteen people have been discharged in the case, while charges have been framed against nine others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
ED filed closure reports in 49 PMLA cases over last 10 years: Government
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) over the last ten-and-a- half years, has filed closure reports in 49 cases before special courts meant to try anti-money laundering crimes, the government informed Parliament on Tuesday (July 29, 2025). Parliament Monsoon Session: Follow LIVE updates on July 29, 2025 The agency secured eight conviction orders involving 15 people from the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) courts between 2015 to June 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said in a written statement furnished in the Rajya Sabha. He was asked about the details of all cases lodged by the ED since 2015 where charge sheets have not yet been filed in courts, trial of the accused has not started and prosecution has been closed by the federal probe agency. "During the period from 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2025, the Directorate of Enforcement has taken up 5,892 cases for investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002," the Minister said. In these cases, 1,398 prosecution complaints including 353 supplementary charge sheets have been filed before the respective special courts under PMLA, he said. Also Read | Significant step-up in action taken under PMLA since 2014, says ED Director Out of these, so far, the special courts have framed charges in 300 prosecution complaints including 66 supplementary charge sheets, Mr. Chaudhary said. "As on 30.06.2025, the PMLA special courts have convicted 15 persons in 08 conviction orders in these cases," he stated. The reply did not specify the reasons for filing of the closure reports by the ED. According to the scheme of PMLA, money laundering cases are only registered after taking cognisance of a predicate offence or primary case booked under various sections of the IPC or BNS and other laws. The courts have held that if the primary case falls before a court of law, the PMLA case will automatically go away.
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC asks home ministry to conduct probe after authorities fail to share CCTV footage of assault at detention centre
Granting bail to two foreign nationals accused of attempting to flee from a detention centre and assaulting officials on duty in the process, the Delhi High Court on Monday suggested that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) carry out an appropriate inquiry into the incident. The instruction came after Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that 'It is quite surprising that footage of the CCTV cameras installed at the detention centre, namely Seva Sadan, Lampur, is being withheld from the investigator.' The court made the observation after it called upon the prosecution 'to address submissions in order to rule out a possibility that the entire incident was fabricated to somehow help the detenues' from being deported to their countries of origin. The accused in the case, nine foreign nationals – one of whom continues to remain on the run to date – had allegedly attempted to run away from the detention centre on February 23, 2024, after twisting the hand of an official and causing injuries to other officials in the scuffle that ensued. While two were caught inside the camp, six others were later apprehended from nearby areas. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged in the case, and they were subsequently sent to judicial custody. Two of the accused, represented by advocates Meghan and Anup Das, while seeking bail before the Delhi High Court, claimed innocence and told the court that they are only being 'used as a scapegoat', submitting that no such offence was committed and that they are facing 'racial discrimination and the principles of equality have been given a go-by'. The accused also told the court that the whole matter 'is a cock and bull story and an attempt to convert other disputes into a criminal case by misusing the law.' The Delhi Police, through the Narela police station Station House Officer, Inspector Rajendra Singh, had informed the court that while the incident was captured in CCTV cameras installed at the centre, it was unable to obtain the footage. According to the police, they initially issued a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in March 2024 to the Superintendent, Department of Social Welfare of Delhi Government, who had responded that the department is only responsible for caretaking facilities and internal security is managed by the Delhi Police and external security by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), with the CCTV footage also being maintained by the latter. A notice under section 91 of the CrPC was then issued to the commanding officer, CRPF, SevaSadan, to which the force stated that cameras were not under their unit's jurisdiction and advised the police to approach the Foreigners' Regional Registration Office (FRRO). Another notice was issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, FRRO, to which the assistant commissioner (AFRRO) conveyed that CCTVs were installed by the social welfare department and the required footage should be obtained from them under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to electronic records. Justice Kathpalia recorded, 'The Department of Social Welfare alleges that the CCTV is manned by CRPF; but CRPF alleges that CCTV is manned by FRRO; but the FRRO alleges that the CCTV is manned by the Department of Social Welfare… In view of the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of this case, learned APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor), after discussing with the SHO, Narela, submits that the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi or the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs would be the competent authorities to carry out the necessary inquiries/investigation.' 'Therefore, copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to carry out appropriate inquiry and, if necessary, investigation in accordance with law,' the judge added.
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘We can't rehear the same issue': Delhi High Court on Engineer Rashid's plea seeking waiver of travel costs to attend Parliament
The Delhi High Court Tuesday opined that it is inclined to transfer the plea by Lok Sabha MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh alias Engineer Rashid seeking waiver of the costs to be borne by him for travel and security arrangements to attend Parliament to the earlier bench which imposed the condition. Rashid has been lodged in Tihar Jail since 2019 in a terror funding case. Last week, a Delhi trial court granted custody parole to Rashid, Independent MP from Baramulla in Jammu and Kashmir, from July 24 to August 4 to attend the Monsoon Session of Parliament, with the condition that he would bear the costs for the necessary travel and security arrangements. In March, while allowing Rashid to attend Parliament during the Budget session, the Delhi High Court imposed the condition that the lawmaker would bear the expense for his travel to Parliament while in the court's custody, accompanied by the police, and other arrangements. At the time, the jail authorities estimated a daily cost of approximately Rs 1.45 lakh for travel and related arrangements, totalling Rs 8.74 lakh for Rashid to attend six days of Parliament, following which he challenged before the high court the condition that required him to bear the costs. Subsequently, for the limited aspect of attending the Budget session of the Parliament, he submitted that he was ready to deposit 50 per cent of the total cost of over Rs 8.74 lakh for police escort arrangement Recording Rashid's submission, the Delhi High Court then directed that he should be allowed to attend the Parliament after depositing the amount. Taken up before the bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur Tuesday, as Rashid's advocate Vikhyat Oberoi sought for an accommodation during the day as senior advocate N Hariharan was yet to reach court, Justice Chaudhary orally remarked, 'We can't rehear the same issue, we can't sit in appeal… You have to press this modification before the earlier bench (which had provided for such a condition), it has to consider it. Till the application (seeking modification of condition) is pending, it will be applicable for all sessions of Parliament.' 'For every session of Parliament, there cannot be a fresh application…There is no reason for us to sit over as an appellate court (over an issue decided by a division bench of the same court earlier), as simple as judicial discipline. The (earlier) division bench has applied its mind to the facts of the case, and taken a decision, we will follow, on (grounds of) judicial discipline, I at least very strictly and seriously follow.' The earlier bench of the high court that imposed the condition comprised Justices C D Singh and Anup Bhambhani. Justice Singh was transferred to the Allahabad High Court in April. In case of a transfer of the case, the bench may include Justice Bhambhani along with another judge, subject to allocation by the Chief Justice. The court has now posted the matter for consideration next on July 31. Rashid, who defeated the incumbent Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in the Baramulla seat by over 2 lakh votes in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, has been lodged in Delhi's Tihar Jail since 2019 in a case of alleged terror funding. Rashid was arrested in 2019 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to the NIA, he used various public platforms to 'propagate the ideology of separatism and secessionism', was closely associated with various terrorist organisations, and wanted to 'legitimise' the United Jihad Council, a platform of anti-India militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. On May 30, 2017, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered a case under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed and other 'secessionist and separatist' leaders, who, according to the NIA, 'received and collected' funds through hawala channels in 'connivance with active militants of…terrorist organisations Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Dukhtaran-e-Millat, Lashkar-e-Toiba' to fund 'terrorist activities' in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid was booked as part of this case.
