New Delhi, Feb 5 (PTI) A court here on Thursday reserved its order on the bail plea of three accused in the stone-pelting incident during a demolition exercise near the Faiz-e-Elahi mosque in Turkman Gate last month.
Besides deciding on the bail petition of Mohammed Areeb, Mohammad Naved, and Mohammad Athar, the court of Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh will also hear the rest of the arguments involving the other five accused on Friday.
During the hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava submitted a detailed reply against bail applications of the eight accused following the court’s earlier directions.
Besides Areeb, Naved and Athar, the other five accused are Mohammad Kaif, Mohammad Kashif, Sameer Hussain, Mohammad Imran, and Mohammad Ubaidullah.
At noon, Shrivastava submitted in the court that Areeb had shared videos of the demolition in a WhatsApp group — Chatter Box — to instigate others on the night of the action. The defence counsel, however, claimed that Areeb had simply forwarded the messages.
The APP played a video of the demolition forwarded by Areeb in which he could be purportedly heard asking people to gather at the demolition site.
Shrivastava alleged that Areeb had shot videos of himself at the scene during the stone-pelting incident, indicating his participation therein.
He reportedly deleted the videos at the time of his arrest.
The APP, appearing for the Delhi Police, further argued that there was no parity between Mohammad Ubedullah, who has been granted bail, and these eight accused, whose role in the violence was much more grave.
Ubedullah has been granted bail on account of his elderly father’s serious illness and the non-availability of other male caretakers in the family.
In the afternoon, the court heard arguments on the bail application of Areeb, Naved and Athar.
Areeb’s counsel told the court that he worked in a place which was close to the site of violence, and there is CCTV footage of him reporting at his workplace in the neighbourhood at the time of the incident.
Athar’s counsel alleged that his face was not clearly visible in the video footage presented by the police.
When the judge asked how the police ascertained Athar’s identity if his face was not clearly visible in the footage, the investigating officer replied that the accused was wearing the same jacket seen in the video at the time of his arrest.
“So you are identifying them from their clothes?” asked Athar’s counsel, and argued that his client’s residence is less than 50 meters from the site of violence.
When asked about videos of the demolition shared on his Snapchat account, the counsel replied, “Just because I made a video does not mean I engaged in an unlawful assembly.” The court cautioned the prosecution against straying away from the written submissions in the detailed reply, as they had made additional accusations orally that constables had seen the accused pelting stones, without providing supporting evidence.
The defence counsel for Naved also contended his face was not clearly visible in the video footage relied upon by the investigating officer. He stated no particular role had been attributed to Naved in the violence.
The investigating officer said that upon zooming in on the video, Naved was “apparently visible” at the 16-second mark.
At this, the judge asked how the officer could say that with so much conviction while taking into account that the facial recognition analysis of the footage was still pending.
On January 24, a separate sessions court granted bail to Ubedullah after the first bail order of January 20 was set aside and sent back to the sessions court by the Delhi High Court.
The case pertains to violence during an anti-encroachment drive near the mosque in the Ramlila Maidan area on the intervening night of January 6 and 7. Police said rumours were spread on social media that the mosque opposite Turkman Gate was being demolished, prompting people to gather at the spot.
They said around 150-200 people hurled stones and glass bottles at the police and MCD personnel, injuring six police personnel, including the area’s station house officer. PTI MDB NSD NSD
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.