New Delhi [India], October 21 (ANI): Former MCD councillor Tahir Hussain, accused in the larger conspiracy case pertaining to the February 2020 north-east Delhi riots, argued in court on Monday that other riots cases for which cognizance was taken of for the offence of rioting can’t be called a result of larger conspiracy under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Karkardooma court is hearing arguments on the framing of charges in the larger conspiracy case.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai heard the part arguments advanced by Advocate Rajiv Mohan counsel for Tahir Hussain. Further arguments are scheduled to be heard on October 23.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan submitted that Delhi police registered 765 FIRs for the offences of rioting etc took place in 2020. It is alleged that these incidents were a result of a larger Conspiracy under UA(P)A. He submitted that out of those 765 FIRs, the concerned court has already taken cognizance of under sections related to rioting etc.
No court took cognizance of the terrorist activity under UA(P)A. In this light, those offences and cases can’t be called a result of a larger conspiracy under UA(P)A. It was further argued that the statement of protected witness Mike can’t be relied upon as it cannot be recorded as a statement of witness.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan elaborated that as per the prosecution version Mike had stated that he had information since May 2019 that a conspiracy of riots was being hatched. Still, he withheld the information and did not disclose it before the police.
“In this situation, Mike had committed the offence of concealment of information related to a prospective crime. Therefore his statement can’t be recorded as Witness under section 161 CrPC,” Rajiv Mohan argued.
He further argued that it is not the case of Delhi Police that these riots were acts of terrorism. Still, a case was registered under the anti-terror law UAPA.
On March 30, 2024, the court dismissed the regular bail application of Tahir Hussain. The accused was arrested on April 6, 2020. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed on September 16, 2020. Subsequently, five supplementary charge sheets were filed.
The court had dismissed the bail plea in view of the bar under UA(P)A and the role attributed to him as per the statement of witnesses.
“Thus, given the facts as discussed above and the bar under Section 43(D)(5) of UA(P)A, the Court does not find the case of the applicant to be a fit case for granting bail,” the court said in the order passed on March 30.
The court said that in the case in hand, after going through the record, the Court is of the view that the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.
“As far as the role of the applicant as shown by the prosecution is concerned, the record shows that the applicant while participating in the conspiracy, not only funded the activities of the riots but also participated in the other activities which led to the riots,” the court said.
The court had also said that the statements of some prosecution witnesses as recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other material on record clearly show the role of the present applicant. It also said that one of the prosecution witnesses is Rahul Kasana who clearly stated the role of the applicant regarding the distribution of money to the protesters in order to make preparations for the riots, meeting of the present applicant with the other co-accused persons.
“It is also on record that the applicant released his licenced revolver just two days before the alleged incidents and used the same, as 22 spent or used cartridges were recovered from his house,” it added.
Besides this, allegedly the applicant converted approximately Rs 1.5 crore in cash, which was used in the
rioting and the said fact has been confirmed through the statements of different witnesses and examination of relevant bank accounts, the court said.
It was also contended by the counsel for the applicant that the alleged acts of the applicant cannot be termed as terrorist acts and do not constitute the offences under Sections 13,16, 17 & 18 of UA(P)A.
The court said that it is not in agreement with this contention of the Counsel. Definition of ‘Terrorist Act’ as provided under Section 15 of the UA(P)A clearly shows that even if some inflammable substance, firearms, or lethal weapons are used which is likely to cause death or injury to any person or cause loss, damage or destruction to any property, such act would fall in the definition of Terrorist Act.
“In the case in hand, the allegations against the applicant, as mentioned earlier are such that his acts may fall in the definition of Terrorist act. As such, at this stage, it cannot be said that the provisions of UA(P)A as mentioned in the charge sheet are not applicable to the applicant,” the court had held.
In the ongoing case of 2020 Delhi riots, around 20 people including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita among others have been booked under UA(P)A. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
