New Delhi: The Delhi Police has sought cancellation of bail granted to one Faisal Farooq in connection with the February riots by claiming that the complainant’s son and a witness were threatened by some people on his behalf.
A trial court had on 20 June granted bail to Farooq, a private school owner, who is charged with hatching a conspiracy to aggravate riots in and around his institution in Northeast Delhi.
While granting bail, Judge Vinod Yadav had observed how prima facie it had not been established that Farooq was present at the spot at the time of the incident.
In an application filed Friday in the Delhi High Court, newly-appointed Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad submitted certain additional facts in support of the Delhi Police’s plea seeking cancellation of Farooq’s bail.
The application states that a life-threatening call was made to the complainant’s son from an unknown number, allegedly on behalf of Farooq.
On investigation into the number, the application says, it was found that the call originated in Deoband. While the number was not registered in Farooq’s name, the application says he has “deep roots” in Deoband.
It also states that a witness was threatened via phone calls on 15 and 16 June, days before the bail was granted to Farooq. The first call was made by “some Maulana” and the second was made by Farooq’s father.
The first call, the application further submits, was found to have been made from a number belonging to a friend of Farooq’s father.
It also claims that Farooq had interfered in the “administration of justice” by submitting fake medical certificate, claiming his wife’s illness, to seek bail.
“In case Respondent/ accused Faisal Farooq is continued to be enlarged on bail, the process of law is likely to be thwarted and stifled which cannot be permitted by this Hon’ble Court…,” reads the application.
The Delhi Police had challenged the trial court’s bail order (on 20 June) right away and the case was first heard in the high court on 22 June. The bail order was stayed by the high court then.
However, the prosecution counsel has ever since been sparring over who is authorised to represent the Delhi Police in these cases. But on 2 July, the high court had vacated its interim stay on the bail granted to Farooq.
Also read: Delhi rioters invoked Partition drama Gadar as they attacked Muslim women, panel says
President has appointed public prosecutors
On 2 July, the Delhi High Court had asked the central and Delhi governments to file written submissions on whether the lieutenant governor (L-G) can unilaterally appoint a solicitor general, additional solicitor general and other counsel of the central government to represent the Delhi Police.
The confusion arose because the Delhi Police report to the Union home affairs ministry but the riots is an issue that concerns the Delhi government.
Prasad’s application tells the court that President Ram Nath Kovind has appointed 11 special public prosecutors, including himself, under section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to 752 cases concerning the Northeast Delhi riots.
“Thus, the entire controversy agitated by the Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) has been put to rest in as much the authority of the Hon’ble President of India in a situation of difference of opinion cannot be questioned by the Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal), more particularly before this Hon’ble Court while exercising powers under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C,” the application asserts.
Also read: Delhi Police abetted, was complicit in February riots, says minorities panel probe team