Delhi Court Hears Bail Arguments in Turkman Gate Stone-Pelting Case
A Delhi court on Friday conducted hearings for the bail applications of four additional accused individuals involved in the Turkman Gate stone-pelting case. The court has also reserved its final decision regarding the bail pleas submitted by seven other defendants in this high-profile legal matter.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh presided over the proceedings, listening to detailed submissions presented on behalf of the accused individuals identified as Kaif, Kashif, Sameer, and Ubaidullah. The remaining bail arguments in this case have been scheduled for further hearing on Monday.
The defence counsel presented a comprehensive argument asserting that no further custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. They emphasized that the ongoing investigation could effectively proceed based on the substantial digital evidence already available to the prosecution.
Opposing these bail applications, the prosecution team led by Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastav presented counter-arguments. The prosecution cited pending Medico-Legal Case (MLC) reports as a crucial reason for denying bail, noting that these reports remain incomplete due to the absence of the chief medical officer. They contended that the continued physical presence of the accused individuals was therefore essential for the proper progression of the investigation.
Defence Evidence and Counterarguments
The defence team relied extensively on multiple video clips and CCTV footage to challenge the prosecution's narrative and evidence. For accused individuals Kaif and Kashif, the defence submitted compelling CCTV footage that purportedly shows Kaif present at his residential premises from 7:00 PM on January 6th until 3:00 AM the following day.
This visual evidence directly contradicts the investigating officer's claim that both brothers were apprehended at 2:30 AM. The defence counsel argued that the two individuals were compelled to exit their residence—which is located in close proximity to the alleged violence site—only after tear gas entered their home during the incident.
Regarding accused Sameer, the defence presented a logical argument that his presence in the general area was entirely natural since his residence is situated merely 500 to 700 metres from the incident location. They supported this claim with CCTV footage showing Sameer standing near his house between 12:09 AM and 1:00 AM before returning indoors, thereby asserting his non-participation in the violent activities.
For accused Ubaidullah, the defence submitted that he had ventured outside his nearby residence solely to purchase essential medicines from a local market. The counsel further challenged the prosecution's assertion that Ubaidullah was "apprehended behind Delight Cinema," instead claiming that he had voluntarily visited the police station to inquire about his father, who had initially been detained by authorities.
The legal proceedings continue to unfold as both sides present their evidence and arguments in this significant case that has captured public attention in the national capital.
