2020 Delhi riots: Court disapproves 'wild and unsubstantiated allegations' against public prosecutor

The court noted that during the bail arguments of an accused on August 26, arguments between Pracha, representing accused Tasleem Ahmed, and SPP turned "acrimonious," resulting in an adjournment.
Image used for representational purpose only.
Image used for representational purpose only.

NEW DELHI:  A Delhi court has disapproved "wild and unsubstantiated allegations" by an advocate representing in a 2020 NorthEast Delhi riots case against a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), saying he received cash from Delhi police in an underhand manner.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said that he does not want to meddle in the allegations made by Adv Mehmood Pracha against SPP Amit Prasad while dealing with the case about the alleged larger conspiracy behind the riots.

The court noted that during the bail arguments of an accused on August 26, arguments between Pracha, representing accused Tasleem Ahmed, and SPP turned "acrimonious," resulting in an adjournment.

“However, the court deprecates the wild allegations without substantiation made against the ld. Prosecutor and particularly when it did not concern the merits of the case," the court observed.

Following the adjournment of the case, Pracha moved a preponement application, in which he again alleged that the SPP had threatened to implicate him in this case, the judge noted.

He said that SPP in his reply said that Pracha made specific personal allegations, including that the advocate conducted a private investigation on him and found out that Prasad, in an underhand manner, took cash from the police.

It was noted by the court that the SPP's reply, according to which, if the allegations were correct, he was not fit to continue in the case and Pracha could place the material on record to substantiate the "false and grave allegations," which questioned the SPP's integrity.

"The court had tried its level best to cool down the tempers between counsel for the accused and the SPP without any fruitful result," the order stated.

About the issue of conflict of interest, the judge said that the accused despite being aware of the allegations of conflict of interest insisted on being represented by Pracha.

"Regarding this issue, whether it is a conflict of interest and is not allowed by Bar Council of Delhi rules, the same is left open for the prosecutor or for the Bar Council of Delhi to consider or to initiate an action if deemed fit under their rules," he said.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com