A "roving/fishing inquiry" cannot be permitted on behalf of any accused during the judicial proceedings, a Delhi court has said while dismissing an application seeking a specific answer from the police on whether the investigation against an accused in the murder case of a head constable during the communal violence in north east Delhi in February, was complete. During the hearing of the bail plea of Mohd Saleem Khan, arrested in the case related to alleged murder of Head Constable Ratan Lal during the riots, his counsel moved an application to bring on record certain facts of the case.
The application sought a specific answer from the Investigating Officer (IO) as to whether the charge sheet against Khan in the matter was complete or the investigation still continued. Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said the riot cases can not be equated with other criminal cases where the accused and victims stand clearly identified and the police just has to collect evidence against the accused. "In my considered opinion, the riot cases can not be equated with other criminal cases where the accused and victims stand clearly identified and the police just have to collect evidence against the accused," the judge said.
The court further said that in riot cases, the police has to first obtain CCTV footage or video footage of the incident and then identify the persons present at the scene of crime and it was difficult to clearly identify each and every person in one go and investigate the matter "I am also conscious of the fact that immediately after the riots, the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the length and breadth of this country including the NCT of Delhi, the police administration was asked to join the COVID management in addition to maintenance of law and order and investigation of riot cases. "Therefore, one can really not say as to whether the police loses its right to further investigate the matter or to continue to investigate qua unidentified rioters. This court can not permit a roving/fishing inquiry during the judicial proceedings in this matter as sought to be done through this application," it said. Khan's counsel Mehmood Pracha had alleged that the IO of the case had filed two supplementary charge sheets in the matter to plug in the lacunas which were argued by him during hearing of the bail plea.
He further claimed that this prima-facie showed that the investigation was not concluded/closed by the IO against Khan at the time of filing charge sheet. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for the state, argued that there was no provision in law under which such an application can be filed and the application was also not filed indicating any provision of law and, therefore, it was not maintainable. He further argued that the right of the Investigating Agency to investigate the case can not be curtailed by filing such application and accused can not command the process of disposal of the proceedings and can not put the court to terms. The public prosecutor has further argued that there was no bar in law against the Investigating Agency to further investigate the matter after filing of the charge sheet and file supplementary charge sheets.
Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control, leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured.
.
Comments
0 comment