Latest news with #DelhiRiots
India Gazette
09-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Delhi Riots: Delhi HC reserves order on Tasleem Ahmed's bail plea
New Delhi [India], July 9 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, who is an accused in the larger Conspiracy of Delhi riots 2020 case. He has sought bail on several grounds, including the delay in trial and his prolonged incarceration in custody. His bail plea was opposed by the Delhi Police, contending that the delay could not be the sole ground for bail. The division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved the order after hearing the arguments by both sides. Advocate Mehmood Pracha appeared for petitioner Tasleem Ahmed, whose bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last five years, and the trial has not yet commenced. Advocate Parcha also submitted that no adjournment was ever sought by the petitioner before the High Court. He also submitted that despite orders from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, the matter is not being heard on a day-to-day basis. It was further argued that the arguments on the charge on behalf of the petitioner have been completed. On the other hand, the Delhi Police opposed the bail plea, submitting that delay cannot be the sole ground for granting bail in UAPA cases. He referred to several judgments passed by the courts. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared on behalf of the Delhi Police. He argued that there is an embargo on Section 43(D), which applies to the consideration of bail in UAPA cases. This proviso provides that bail cannot be granted without testing the material filed by the investigation agency against the accused. During the arguments, SPP also referred to the notice on conspiracy to riot. He submitted that a conspiracy was hatched, and consequently, 53 people died. On March 25, the High Court had asked the Delhi Police to file a note on the role of the accused, Tasleem Ahmed. Earlier, Advocate Mehmood Pracha had submitted that Tasleem Ahmed's case was different from that of the other co-accused persons. On February 22, 2024, the trial court dismissed his bail plea. Earlier, he had sought regular bail on the grounds of parity with three co-accused, namely Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, in relation to a larger conspiracy surrounding the 2020 Delhi Riots. Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted regular bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15, 2021, after their appeals against the trial court order were allowed. Special Judge Sameer Bajpai stated that the earlier bail application of accused Tasleem Ahmed was rejected by the predecessor court on March 16, 2022, in which the court held the allegations against the accused to be prima facie true. Hence, the embargo created by Section 43D of UA(P)A applies to the grant of bail to the accused, as well as the embargo contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C., the court held. (ANI)
The Independent
09-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
‘This is not justice': Father laments after court acquits 12 men accused of killing his sons during Delhi riots
In the dimly lit ground floor of his small house in northeast Delhi 's Mustafabad, Babu Khan sits hunched in a plastic chair as the air fills with the rhythmic clicking of sewing machines operated by his wife and daughter. Together, on a good day, they earn up to Rs500 (£4.25) but on some days, nothing. The family's monthly income rarely touches Rs7,000 (£60.50). It's daytime but sunlight barely filters in, making it hard to tell day from night indoors. The main door is the sole source of natural light in the room, which opens into a narrow, 500m alleyway no wider than three feet. This is the world left behind by Aamir Ali and his brother Hashim Ali whose bodies were found in a drain near Bhagirathi Vihar on 27 February 2020 following riots in the national capital. In a set of rulings related to one of the deadliest episodes of religious violence in India, a Delhi court recently acquitted 18 people accused of killing Muslim men, including the Ali brothers, during the riots. For the family of Aamir and Hashim, the ruling is the latest blow in their long quest for justice – a wait they now fear may never end. Over three days of bloodshed, at least 53 people, mostly Muslims, were killed and more than 200 injured as mobs laid siege to Muslim neighbourhoods, burning homes, shops and mosques in what survivors and rights groups have since called a pogrom. The trigger for the riots was a citizenship law introduced in 2019 that critics say marginalises India's Muslim minority. Clashes broke out between those opposing the citizenship law and those supporting it with Hindus and Muslims both blaming each other for starting the riots. Five years later, a court has thrown out murder charges in three of the cases, citing insufficient or inconsistent evidence, including WhatsApp group chats that investigators presented as confessions but the presiding judge dismissed as boastful rather than factual in a series of orders delivered in mid-May. Those acquitted included 12 men charged with killing Aamir, and another Muslim man named Akil Ahmed, whose body was recovered from the same drain. These 12 men were previously acquitted in April in the murder of Hashim and in March of two other Muslim men in separate orders wherein same WhatsApp chats were presented as evidence, reported the Indian Express. 'I learnt about the judgment only on 13 May,' Khan, 60, says, his voice hollowed by grief. 'We are still fighting the fight. But everyone knows what a crime has been committed against us. We have not received justice.' 'This is not justice,' he emphasises to The Independent. 'We will appeal in the high court.' On 26 February, at around 9.15pm, Aamir had called his father to say that they were near the Gokalpuri neighbourhood and coming home. Minutes later, their phones were unreachable. 'We looked for them all night,' Khan says. 'Next morning, we went to the police. They called us to identify three bodies. Two of them were my sons.' Postmortem reports revealed Aamir had sustained 25 injuries, including severe burns, and died from shock induced by head trauma. 'My life has been miserable since that night,' Khan says, staring at the wall. 'I have been fighting death every day. I can't even walk up to the road. Who should I share my grief with? And what's the point?' The police initially filed a murder and rioting case at the capital's Gokalpuri station, later transferring it to the Crime Branch's Special Investigation Team. The prosecution alleged that a Hindu mob – chanting religious slogans and armed with rods, swords and stones – had caught hold of the two brothers, confirmed they were Muslim, beaten them, and thrown them into the drain. Twelve men – Lokesh Kumar Solanki alias Rajput, Sumit Chaudhary alias Badshah, Prince alias DJ Walla, Rishabh Chaudhary alias Tapash, Pankaj Sharma, Jatin Sharma alias Rohit, Vivek Panchal alias Nandu, Sahil alias Babu, Sandeep alias Mogli, Ankit Chaudhary alias Fauzi, Himanshu Thakur, and Tinku Arora – were initially charged with murder, conspiracy and rioting. Two other accused – Pawan Kumar alias Lokesh and Lalit Kumar alias Rahul Chaudhary – were booked for destroying evidence and receiving stolen property. In late May, however, judge Pulastya Pramachala threw out the murder case saying there was no 'conclusive evidence' connecting the accused to the crime or establishing the presence of a riotous mob at the scene. The prosecution leaned heavily on digital data and chats from a WhatsApp group which had been created a few days before the carnage. One message allegedly sent by one of the accused, Lokesh Kumar Solanki, read, in Hindi: 'Your brother (referring to himself) killed two Muslims near Bhagirathi Vihar around 9pm and threw them in the drain.' The judge deemed the message boastful and not evidentiary. 'Such messages may have been to impress or boast among group members rather than serve as factual confessions,' he observed, stressing that extrajudicial confessions required corroboration. The judge concluded that while Aamir and Hashim were likely killed and their bodies dumped in the drain, but there was no 'incriminating evidence' to link the 12 accused to the crime. 'It can be inferred from the circumstances that it was a case of culpable homicide,' Pramachala ruled. He quoted multiple Supreme Court precedents emphasising that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain excluding all other possibilities to justify conviction. In this instance, the judge ruled the evidence fell short. In a related ruling, Judge Pramachala convicted Solanki of promoting enmity and inciting communal violence through the WhatsApp group. He held that while no direct connection to the murders was proven, his messages fomented communal discord. For Khan and his family, the ruling offers no relief. 'We now know there is nothing like justice,' Khan says. 'But hope is all we have. And God will definitely listen someday.' His wife, he says, is chronically unwell. Aamir worked for ride-hailing apps and also dealt in scrap. His younger brother sold jeans. Between them, they carried the weight of the household. 'What did my children ever do to anyone?' he asks. 'You get joy from helping others, from feeding someone. What kind of people get joy from killing?' His voice breaks. 'They were worse than animals.' Judge Pramachala, acquitting the 12 men in the murder trial of Akil Ahmed, said the prosecution had failed to establish how, when or by whom the Muslim man was killed. His postmortem had confirmed Akil died from blunt force trauma. The prosecution alleged that he had been killed during a targeted attack on Muslims by a Hindu mob. As in Aamir's case, the police relied for evidence on WhatsApp chats from the WhatsApp group which they claimed the accused men had used to coordinate attacks on Muslims. In this case as well, the court found the prosecution's case entirely circumstantial. 'There is no evidence to even show as to when, where and how Akil was killed,' Pramachala ruled. Key prosecution witnesses either failed to identify the accused or denied having seen the killing. One witness said he saw a mob chasing two bikers and one man being beaten and thrown into a drain but could not confirm the victim's identity. This testimony, the judge said, 'on its face value, establishes that two persons and a bike were thrown into the drain' but 'is totally silent in respect of alleged incident with deceased herein'. The prosecution also relied on statements from police personnel and WhatsApp chats attributed to accused Lokesh Solanki. The judge said these chats did not name any specific victim or mention Akil and dismissed them as inadequate to establish guilt. Testimony from a policeman who claimed to have overheard rioters naming some of the accused was also rejected as hearsay. The court further ruled on the charge of receiving stolen property. Accused Munesh Kumar had in his possession a mobile phone previously used by Akil. Prosecutors alleged it had been stolen after the murder. However, Pramachala said that no effort had been made to trace the phone's purchase or prove Kumar knew it was stolen. "Mere possession of stolen property does not establish guilt,' the judge said. In another judgment related to the 2020 carnage, Pramachala acquitted six men accused of murdering a young Muslim man named Shahbaz. He ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the men were part of the mob that beat and burned Shahbaz alive. Shahbaz, 22, was last heard from on the afternoon of 25 February 2020, when he phoned his brother, Matloob, from Karawal Nagar in northeast Delhi. The area was engulfed in violence, sparked by protests over the controversial law introduced by prime minister Narendra Modi's government. When Matloob tried calling back at 3pm, the phone was switched off. Shahbaz never reached home. His charred remains – only his skull and pelvic bones could be identified– were discovered by police officer Naveen Kumar near a rubbish dump on Pusta Road. His identity was later confirmed by DNA testing. One witness said he saw a Muslim boy being attacked and set on fire by a group of Hindu men near the dump yard. Another said he had seen a mob and the burned body in the same location. But the court found no evidence that tied the six accused – Aman, Vikram alias Vicky, Rahul Sharma, Ravi Sharma, Dinesh Sharma and Ranjeet Rana – to the mob responsible. The prosecution's key witnesses either failed to identify the accused or retracted their earlier statements. Two individuals cited as having heard extrajudicial confessions also turned hostile. Aamir has left behind three daughters, the youngest of whom was born after his death. 'What do we tell them?' Khan asks. 'We used to console them for a long time but now they know the truth – their father was murdered.'
Hindustan Times
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
2020 Delhi riots: Court grants time to respond to revisions by police, Kapil Mishra
The Rouse Avenue court on Monday granted respondents time to file a reply on the revisions filed by Delhi Police and Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra. The court is dealing with two revisions challenging the order for further investigation on the role of Kapil Mishra in the North East Delhi riots of 2020. Special judge Kaveri Baweja granted time to respondents Mohd Iliyas, Kapil Mishra, and others to file a reply on the petitions. The court has also directed Delhi police to supply a copy of the charge sheet filed in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy to the respondents. The court has listed the matter on May 7 for arguments, and the interim stay is to continue till the next date. Also Read | Probe Kapil Mishra's alleged role in 2020 riots, orders Delhi court On April 9, the court issued notice on the revision petitions moved by Kapil Mishra. He has challenged the order passed by the magistrate court directing further investigation into the North Delhi riots of 2020. The court had stayed the operation of the order passed by the trial court till the next date of hearing. The court had also called the trial court records. Meanwhile, the sessions court has stayed the observation made by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in relation to the investigation of the Delhi police in the larger Conspiracy case. During the hearing, Advocate Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police, Senior advocate Pavan Narang, along with Advocates Neeraj and Himanshu Sethi, appeared for MLA Mohan Singh Bisht, and Advocate Manya Hashija appeared for Kapil Mishra. Also Read | 'Inflammatory remarks' case: Mishra moves HC The magistrate court had passed an order for further investigation on the basis of material placed by the Delhi police and the application of one Mohd. Illiyas. Applicant Mohd Illiyas had sought a direction for registration of an FIR against Kapil Mishra and others. Senior advocate Pramod Dubey appeared for Kapil Mishra. He argued, "Can a further investigation without having an FIR? Where is the FIR? And there is no identification of the area of the police station." "In the absence of a FIR direction, an FIR can not be given," Senior advocate Dubey argued. Dubey also submitted that further investigation can be ordered during the pendency of the Final Report. "There was no Charge sheet before the MP MLA Court. There should be pendency of charge sheet. For registration of an FIR, a complaint has to be filed before the police first, only after that, an application for registration of an FIR can be filed in the court. One ATR was filed when the matter was pending in the KKD court. Three ATRs were filed by the police. My client was interrogated by Delhi Police," it stated. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police and raised the question of jurisdiction of the magistrate court, which passed the order under challenge. He submitted that even this court could not pass this court as it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with an FIR which is already under consideration of a special court, and a charge sheet has been filed. This application for registration of FIR was filed through Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who was part of the propaganda building team in 2020, and the SPP submitted it before the court. This complaint was given to all officers and even the prime minister. Emails were sent to the prime minister, the home minister, the DCP, and the Commissioner of police. It was not emailed to SHO. This email cannot be treated as the compliance with necessary requirements for registration of FIR, Prasad added. "A Status report narrating the five incidents was filed by the police," the SPP for Delhi police said. It was also argued that there was improvisation of the statement of the complainant. First, he said that the vehicles of Muslims and Dalits were stopped, and later on were allowed to go. Later, the statement was changed to reflect that there was a Road block, damage to the cart of Muslims and Dalits at Kardam Puri road, SPP added. There was no allegation of violation; the court below embellished the Complaint, the SPP submitted. He further submitted that we informed the court that we have investigated the role of Kapil Mishra. Advocate Pracha was asked to argue, but he didn't; meanwhile, the roster was changed. We were again summoned and asked to place on record the material. "We were directed to further investigate on the basis of material we provided in a matter which is before the special court," SPP submitted. The court asked, "Had you ever investigated the allegations in the complaint before filing the charge sheet in the larger Conspiracy. "Are there any other complaints alleging the road block by Kapil Mishra?" the judge questioned. SPP submitted that there are multiple such complaints, but nothing incriminating was found. He was asked during the recording of that statement whether he had ever visited the place of the incident. He replied that he lives in Yamuna Vihar, and a petrol pump was burnt near his colony, SPP said. There are 751 FIRs, no FIR talks about damage of vehicles on the same date and time between 3 pm to 6 pm, it added. It was further submitted by the SPP that he was called to assist the court in the matter of application under section 156(3) and was given direction under section 173( 8) for further investigation, it was not expected. "I am going to face music every day due to this order," SPP added. All these cases are tried in KKD, you do not get the power to give observation on the police investigation in a case that is before the special court, he added. He prayed that the observation of the trial court should be stayed.
Mint
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Mint
2020 Delhi riots: Kapil Mishra given time to reply to Delhi Police's investigation revisions
The Rouse Avenue court on Monday granted respondents time to file a reply on the revisions filed by Delhi Police and Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra. The court is dealing with two revisions challenging the order for further investigation on the role of Kapil Mishra in the North East Delhi riots of 2020. Special judge Kaveri Baweja granted time to respondents Mohd Iliyas, Kapil Mishra, and others to file a reply on the petitions. The court has also directed Delhi police to supply a copy of the charge sheet filed in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy to the respondents. The court has listed the matter on May 7 for arguments, and the interim stay is to continue till the next date. On April 9, the court issued notice on the revision petitions moved by Kapil Mishra. He has challenged the order passed by the magistrate court directing further investigation into the North Delhi riots of 2020. The court had stayed the operation of the order passed by the trial court till the next date of hearing. The court had also called the trial court records. Meanwhile, the sessions court has stayed the observation made by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in relation to the investigation of the Delhi police in the larger Conspiracy case. During the hearing, Advocate Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police, Senior advocate Pavan Narang, along with Advocates Neeraj and Himanshu Sethi, appeared for MLA Mohan Singh Bisht, and Advocate Manya Hashija appeared for Kapil Mishra. The magistrate court had passed an order for further investigation on the basis of material placed by the Delhi police and the application of one Mohd. Illiyas. Applicant Mohd Illiyas had sought a direction for registration of an FIR against Kapil Mishra and others. Senior advocate Pramod Dubey appeared for Kapil Mishra. He argued, "Can a further investigation without having an FIR? Where is the FIR? And there is no identification of the area of the police station." "In the absence of a FIR direction, an FIR can not be given," Senior advocate Dubey argued. Dubey also submitted that further investigation can be ordered during the pendency of the Final Report. "There was no Charge sheet before the MP MLA Court. There should be pendency of charge sheet. For registration of an FIR, a complaint has to be filed before the police first, only after that, an application for registration of an FIR can be filed in the court. One ATR was filed when the matter was pending in the KKD court. Three ATRs were filed by the police. My client was interrogated by Delhi Police," it stated. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police and raised the question of jurisdiction of the magistrate court, which passed the order under challenge. He submitted that even this court could not pass this court as it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with an FIR which is already under consideration of a special court, and a charge sheet has been filed. This application for registration of FIR was filed through Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who was part of the propaganda building team in 2020, and the SPP submitted it before the court. This complaint was given to all officers and even the prime minister. Emails were sent to the prime minister, the home minister, the DCP, and the Commissioner of police. It was not emailed to SHO. This email cannot be treated as the compliance with necessary requirements for registration of FIR, Prasad added. "A Status report narrating the five incidents was filed by the police," the SPP for Delhi police said. It was also argued that there was improvisation of the statement of the complainant. First, he said that the vehicles of Muslims and Dalits were stopped, and later on were allowed to go. Later, the statement was changed to reflect that there was a Road block, damage to the cart of Muslims and Dalits at Kardam Puri road, SPP added. There was no allegation of violation; the court below embellished the Complaint, the SPP submitted. He further submitted that we informed the court that we have investigated the role of Kapil Mishra. Advocate Pracha was asked to argue, but he didn't; meanwhile, the roster was changed. We were again summoned and asked to place on record the material. "We were directed to further investigate on the basis of material we provided in a matter which is before the special court," SPP submitted. The court asked, "Had you ever investigated the allegations in the complaint before filing the charge sheet in the larger Conspiracy. "Are there any other complaints alleging the road block by Kapil Mishra?" the judge questioned. SPP submitted that there are multiple such complaints, but nothing incriminating was found. He was asked during the recording of that statement whether he had ever visited the place of the incident. He replied that he lives in Yamuna Vihar, and a petrol pump was burnt near his colony, SPP said. There are 751 FIRs, no FIR talks about damage of vehicles on the same date and time between 3 pm to 6 pm, it added. It was further submitted by the SPP that he was called to assist the court in the matter of application under section 156(3) and was given direction under section 173( 8) for further investigation, it was not expected. "I am going to face music every day due to this order," SPP added. All these cases are tried in KKD, you do not get the power to give observation on the police investigation in a case that is before the special court, he added. He prayed that the observation of the trial court should be stayed. First Published: 21 Apr 2025, 12:12 PM IST
