In the Delhi riots case, a member of Kattar Hindu Ekta is granted bail while the court slaps police.

A Delhi court granted bail to a 22-year-old man accused of being part of a WhatsApp group called “Kattar Hindu Ekta,” whose members have been charged with murder by coordinating on the group during the Northeast Delhi riots. According to the chargesheet, the WhatsApp group was allegedly created on February 25, 2020, in order to “take revenge on the Muslim community.”

The WhatsApp group was allegedly started on February 25, 2020, with the intention of “taking revenge on the Muslim community,” as stated in the police chargesheet.

ADVERTISEMENT

The accused, Rishabh Chaudhary, was granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramchala. This is the first time a group member has been granted bail. After it was discovered that the police had opposed the accused’s bail application by suppressing material facts, the court also pulled them up and warned them to “assist in a fair manner, rather than adopting the practice of hide and seek.”

In this instance, Musharraf’s body was found with 12 external injuries. In this case, the prosecution had named 12 men as defendants and booked them for rioting and murder. A court had noted that this WhatsApp group “had been formed to kill persons belonging to the Muslim community” when formulating charges against the accused.

Friday, the court noted that the police did not disclose that a witness, who the police claimed had identified the accused prior to them, had become hostile in court. “so as to assist in a fair manner rather than adopting the practice of hide and seek,” the judge asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to educate all IOs.

ADVERTISEMENT

The court stated that the prosecution has “attempted to mislead the court, rather than assisting in a fair manner to project a correct picture” in the name of opposing the bail application. It also stated that the prosecution and the police are aware that a statement made to the police cannot stand in front of a testimony given to the court.

“Any answer being documented by IO/arraignment should be with the target to help the court. Fair and open reporting of the facts and situation is essential for this purpose. “It cannot be said to be of assistance to the court if the reply is filed in a jealous manner, thereby suppressing material facts,” the court stated.

The IO cited a police statement by an eyewitness in opposition to the accused’s bail application, in which he named the rioters. However, when the judge looked through the court records, he discovered that this eyewitness had already been examined by the court, in contrast to his police statement, in which he stated that “he had not identified any one in the mob.” The court noted that while “reply filed by IO today does not refer to such statement,” the witness’s statement was recorded in the presence of the special public prosecutor, which was interesting. read more….

ADVERTISEMENT