New Delhi, Feb 9 A Delhi court on Monday reserved its order on the bail plea of eight 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 Mohammad Adnan, Mohammad Kaif, Mohammad Kashif, Sameer Hussain, Mohammad Ubaidullah, Mohammad Areeb, Mohammad Naved and Mohammad Athar, the court of Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh will also hear on Thursday the rest of the arguments involving the other four accused.
The other four accused in the case are Adnan, Mohammad Imran, Amir Hamza, and Mohammad Aadil.
On Monday, the court heard the arguments of accused Mohammad Adnan.
The counsel for Mohammad Adnan questioned the circumstances around his arrest.
She said the initial FIR did not have the charge of section 109 (attempt to murder) of BNS and all the offences in the initial FIR were bailable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
The counsel argued the Arnesh Kumar guidelines should be applicable in the present case and that the accused must be released on bail. She also said no cogent evidence has been found against Mohammad Adnan indicating he participated in the violence.
"Around the time Adnan was apprehended, his mother and sister were locked inside a room in the house by the police. There was no lady officer in the team that came to apprehend Adnan. The arrest warrant was not signed by a family member but by an acquaintance who was told to either sign it or face legal action by the police," the counsel said.
She also alleged Mohammad Adnan had been subjected to custodial violence.
In an order passed by a magistrate on January 13, fresh medicolegal case (MLC) of co-accused Mohammad Imran was directed to be conducted after the judge found external injuries on his body that were not recorded in the initial MLC. However, no external injuries were found on Mohammad Adnan's body but he complained of physical pain.
The counsel argued there were no CCTV cameras near the police subunit where Mohammad Adnan and Mohammad Imran were apprehended. She alleged Mohammad Adnan was subjected to custodial violence but the police subunit CCTV cameras happened to be in need of repair work at the time, leaving them with no video evidence.
The defence counsel alleged that none of the counsels for the accused were even notified about being charged under Section 109 of BNS, so they had initially approached "the court of first instance", that is, the magistrate court, even though they were not the appropriate forum to look into an attempt to murder charge.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava intervened by stating that the counsels for the accused were informed about the new charge under Section 109 of BNS through the arrest memo.
The defence counsel also pleaded for bail on the grounds of parity as she argued another accused Ubedullah has been granted bail by a separate sessions court in the case.
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 the 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.
It has been alleged that around 150-200 people hurled stones and glass bottles at the police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) personnel, injuring six policemen, including the area's station house officer.
