Cops rapped for citing G20 event to delay 2020 Delhi riots case
The observation came after ASI Jamshed Ali moved an application seeking more time to file a supplementary chargesheet and exemption for SHO.
Published: 14th September 2023 09:14 AM | Last Updated: 14th September 2023 09:34 AM | A+A A-
Scenes from the 2020 Delhi Riots used for representational purpose only. (File Photo)
NEW DELHI: A city court pulled up Delhi Police over their ‘incomplete job’ on a supplementary charge sheet related to the 2020 Delhi riots case after cops sought more time to file the chargesheet citing reasons including “busy due to G-20 Summit”.
Expressing dissatisfaction over the scenario, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said that the court had been seeking certain clarifications from the investigating agency since March. “This court had been seeking certain clarifications from the investigating agency for long i.e. from 01.03.2023. Several observations were made in an order dated 01.03.2023 and 10.05.2023 to show that the chargesheets filed on the record did not provide complete factual information. Instead of completing the undone job, time is being bought on one or the other pretext,” the order read.
The observation came after ASI Jamshed Ali moved an application seeking more time to file a supplementary chargesheet and exemption for SHO. The judge also noted that in the previous hearing on July 20, time was sought by SHO as well as IO to file a fresh supplementary chargesheet. The special Public Prosecutor submitted that SHO is busy in the High Court while IO K.P. Singh is probably engaged in the G-20 Summit and therefore, a supplementary chargesheet could not be filed.
Now, the matter is again referred to DCP Northeast to ensure that the job is completed and posted for further hearing on October 6. The accused, Jony Kumar and his father Mithhan Singh, both are on bail, have been produced from Mandoli, through video conference. There are multiple FIRs against both. Khajuri Khas Police Station had registered two FIRs against Singh and Kumar and the court had convicted them in two separate judgments pronounced on March 28 (FIR no 244) and April 10 (FIR no 239).
The duo was convicted for various offences under IPC sections 147 (rioting) and 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance. In an earlier order, the same bench had observed that “Singh did not act as a good father ... He was expected to show his son the right path.”
