witnesses seemed planted, the Delhi High Court Tuesday granted bail to Kasim, an accused in the Delhi riots case after noticing that he was missing in all the 11 CCTV footage received from different social media accounts of the crime spot though the other accused Tahir Hussain and Liyakat, were seen in them.ays after granting bail to an accused observing that
Advocate for the accused Kasim submitted that he was in Sambhal, Moradabad, UP at the time of the incident and from February 17 to March 23 this year. Thus, he was not present in Delhi on the date of the incident.
Opposing the bail application, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), submitted that an injured person namely Ajay had identified the rioters, including accused Kasim, as he had been living in the same area for the past few years.
In his statement during the course of the investigation, Ajay said when he reached near Tahir Hussain’s house, he saw an angry mob on the terrace of the house, pelting stones, firing gunshots and throwing petrol bombs on the houses of members of the Hindu community.
The mob was chanting anti-communal slogans. However, one of the boys namely, Gulfam @ VIP (whom he identified later on), fired upon him which hit him on his right shoulder. The others were Tahir Hussain, Shah Alam, Tanveer Malik, Nazeem and Kasim.
Regarding the phone location of the petitioner, SPP submitted that the accused Kasim’s mobile phone from February 17 to March 23 was not in active mode, therefore, his phone location could not be established.
The SPP also referred to the statement of two constables who were also present on duty at the spot on February 25, who had seen the incident and identified the accused along with other co-accused persons.
The petitioner is a “BC” of the area, the SSP said. There were ten cases against him due to which the two constables knew him. Therefore, they could identify him and accordingly, their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.03.2020″, he submitted.
Justice Suresh Kait, observed that while there was no dispute that the incident took place on February 25 and statements of the two constables who were on duty were recorded stating they saw the incident and identified the petitioner being “BC” of the area along with other co-accused persons, there was no explanation why the said police officials did not make any PCR call/DD entry to the concerned police station regarding involvement of petitioner on February 25.
“The injured made his statement on 02.03.2020 wherein he named the petitioner and only thereafter, the Ct. Saudan and Ct. Pawan made their statements on 03.03.2020 stating that they were on duty at the spot on the date of the incident and had seen the incident and identified the petitioner”, the judge highlighted.