NEW DELHI: The riots in northeast delhi in February of this year it was the “worst communal riots from the partition “in the national capital and that it was an “open wound” in the conscience of a nation that aspired to be a “great world power”, observed a Delhi court Thursday.
The court statements came from the dismissal of bail statements in three cases from former AAP councilor Tahir Hussain, who allegedly abused his “muscle strength” and “political influence” to foment community violence.
“It is common knowledge that the sad day of February 24, 2020 saw parts of northeast Delhi caught up in a communal frenzy, reminiscent of the carnage during the days of partition. Soon, unrest spread like wildfire across the horizon. gray smoke of Capital, engulf new areas and extinguish more and more innocent lives.
“The Delhi riots 2020 is an open wound in the conscience of a nation that aspires to be a great world power. Even if there were no direct acts of violence attributable to the plaintiff, he cannot evade his responsibility under the provisions of the sections invoked against him, particularly due to the fact that his house / building became the hub / central point of the rioters and rioters to unleash the worst communal riots since the partition in Delhi, “said Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav.
The court further said that the spread of riots on such a large scale in such a short time is not possible without a “premeditated conspiracy”.
“At this stage, I remember a famous English saying that says ‘when you choose to play with embers, you can’t blame the wind for having carried the spark too far and spread the fire.’
“So when the applicant (Hussain) is on the receiving end now, he cannot pass the ball simply by accepting a claim that since he did not physically participate in the riots, he has no role to play in the riots.” It is apparent. prima facie that the plaintiff abused his muscular strength and political influence to foment communal violence in the area, “the judge said.
One of the cases concerned the alleged presence of 100 people standing on the terrace of Hussain’s house with gasoline bombs and throwing them on people belonging to another community during the riots in the Dayalpur area.
The second case was related to the looting of a shop in the area due to which the shop owner incurred a loss of approximately Rs 20 lakh. The third case was related to the looting and burning of a shop due to the owner suffering a loss of around 17-18 lakhs of rupees.
The judge said there was enough recorded material to presume that Hussain was very well present at the crime scene and exhorted rioters from a particular community and as such did not use his hands and fists, but rioters as “weapons. human “. , who by his instigation could have killed anyone.
“It is noteworthy that at the time of the outbreak of communal unrest in the area (s) northeast of Delhi, the applicant (Hussain) has been in a powerful position (being Acting Councilor of the Aam Aadmi Party area ) and It is apparent prima facie that he used his muscular strength and political influence to act as a capo in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of the communal conflagration, “the court said in its order.
He further said that the allegations against Hussain were serious in nature.
Regarding the argument made by Hussain’s lawyer that there was a delay in recording the witness statements in the cases, the court said that it can be said that it is delayed when the police knew the witnesses and yet, the police do not record their statements; whereas, in the event of a disturbance, the police have little idea who the witnesses were.
“In addition, people normally do not show up and the position in the file is admitted that on the date of the incident almost 10,000 calls from PCR (police control room) were recorded in the area of PS (police station) Dayalpur Thereafter, on the basis of In these calls, the police reversed and located some of the witnesses. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is any delay in the registration of witness statements by the investigating agency, “he added.
He said that the public witnesses in the three cases were residents of the same locality and that, if released on bail at this stage, the possibility that Hussain could threaten or intimidate them cannot be ruled out.
It added that although there were no video footage or CCTV footage showing Hussain’s presence at the scene, there was sufficient recorded eye evidence available.
Independent public witnesses in the cases have categorically identified him to be present at the scene on the date of the events, the court said.
“Nowhere is it disputed that the applicant (Hussain) is a public figure and the public witnesses are residents of the same locality, so prima facie this Court has to believe that the aforementioned public witnesses knew the applicant very well. “The eye evidence” from the independent witnesses must be categorical, giving clear details as to the active role they played in the events in question, “he said.
The court further said that analysis of the detailed call log confirmed his presence at or around the crime scene on the date of the incident.
Lead lawyer KK Manan, who appeared on behalf of Hussain, claimed that the police and his political rivals had falsely implicated him in the matter for the sole purpose of harassing him by abusing the legal machinery.
Special prosecutor Manoj Chaudhary said Hussain was the main drug lord / conspirator in the cases.
.
