New Delhi, February 9 A Delhi court on Monday reserved its order on the bail pleas 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 the remaining arguments involving the other four accused on Thursday.
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 lawyer for Mohammad Adnan questioned the circumstances surrounding his arrest.
She stated that the initial FIR did not include the charge under Section 109 (attempt to murder) of the BNS, and all the offenses in the initial FIR were bailable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
The lawyer argued that the Arnesh Kumar guidelines should apply in the present case, and that the accused should be released on bail. She also stated that no conclusive evidence has been found against Mohammad Adnan indicating his involvement 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 female 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 instructed to either sign it or face legal action by the police," the lawyer said.
She also alleged that Mohammad Adnan was subjected to custodial violence.
In an order passed by a magistrate on January 13, a fresh medico-legal case (MLC) was directed to be conducted for co-accused Mohammad Imran 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 lawyer argued that there were no CCTV cameras near the police subunit where Mohammad Adnan and Mohammad Imran were apprehended. She alleged that Mohammad Adnan was subjected to custodial violence but the police subunit CCTV cameras were undergoing repairs at the time, leaving them without any video evidence.
The defence lawyer alleged that none of the counsels for the accused were even informed 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 lawyer also pleaded for bail on the grounds of parity, arguing that 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 rumors 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.
