A Delhi courtroom has granted bail to Mohammad Furqan, accused of killing a person throughout the Northeast Delhi riots, saying he has been in judicial custody for over a 12 months and mustn’t stay in jail simply due to the riots. Others usually are not in jail but. to be arrested.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted bail to an accused arrested for the homicide of 24-year-old Salman, who died of bullet accidents throughout the riots final 12 months.
Special Public Prosecutor Manoj Choudhary instructed the courtroom that “the applicant has been imprisoned in the CCTV footage installed at the crime scene on the date of the incident, wearing a religious cap and a blue T-shirt with white and red stripes.”
Based on this footage, Furqan has been made an accused in seven instances. The order stated that he has been granted bail in three instances and police will file a cancellation report in certainly one of these three instances.
The courtroom stated in its order, ‘The applicant is in judicial custody for about one 12 months on this case. No restoration has been made out of him. It is a matter of report that the applicant has been implicated in a number of instances (together with instances) on the premise of a single/single CCTV footage. In this case, the case of the applicant is completely on a distinct floor than that of the opposite co-accused, whose bail plea has already been rejected by this Court.
“Whatever the case, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed; The hearing in the matter is likely to take a long time; The applicant cannot be made to imprison for eternity merely because of the fact that other persons who were part of the rioting mob should be identified and arrested in the case,” the courtroom stated. .
The Public Prosecutor argued that the placement of the applicant’s cell phone recommended that he was on the crime scene, having been recognized by public witnesses.
Furqan’s lawyer A.A. Khan instructed the courtroom that there was no direct proof out there towards him and there was no public witness.
Khan argued that “neither the applicant carries any firearm in the CCTV footage nor has any such seizure been made from him.”
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
