Delhi Court Scrutinizes Police Evidence in Turkman Gate Demolition Violence Case
In a significant development, the Delhi Police on Tuesday submitted a supplementary reply before a city court concerning the Turkman Gate case. The legal filing alleges that eight individuals were participants in an "unlawful assembly" and engaged in "indiscriminately pelting stones" at police personnel. This violent incident occurred during an anti-encroachment demolition drive conducted in early January.
The alleged confrontation resulted in injuries to five police officers and one civilian, highlighting the severity of the clash. However, the court hearing the matter expressed clear dissatisfaction with the prosecution's approach. Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh pointed out the absence of specific, accused-focused allegations in the police reply. The judge cautioned the investigating officer to remain "mindful" of inconsistencies between oral arguments presented in court and the official written record.
Bail Hearings and Evidentiary Challenges
During the session, the court heard bail pleas for three of the accused: Mohd Areeb, Naved, and Athar. Judge Singh reserved the final bail order for February 6, but not before raising critical questions about the prosecution's evidence. The judge specifically questioned the police's "conviction" in identifying the accused from video footage, especially given the admitted fact that a comprehensive facial recognition analysis has not yet been completed.
Opposing bail for all eight accused, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava argued that the individuals were present at the scene and acted with a "common intention" to obstruct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's demolition drive. This drive was initiated following directions from the High Court. The prosecution further contended that releasing the accused on bail could potentially allow them to influence the ongoing investigation.
Defense Arguments and Prosecution Counterclaims
The defense counsel sought bail primarily on the grounds of parity, citing the earlier bail granted to a co-accused, Mohd Ubedullah, by a separate sessions court on January 24. The prosecution countered this argument by stating that Ubedullah's bail was granted due to his father's illness and the absence of other male caretakers—circumstances that do not apply to the current accused.
In the case of Mohd Areeb, the prosecution presented specific allegations. They claimed he circulated videos of the demolition through a WhatsApp group named "Chatter Box" to "instigate" others. While the defense argued Areeb merely forwarded messages, the APP played a video allegedly shared by him. In the video, a voice is heard saying, "Aa jao mere bhai, yeh log aa gaye hai todne phodne ke liye" (Come, my brothers, these people have come to break and destroy).
The prosecution asserted this video was also sent to other WhatsApp groups, including a 191-member 'Islamic Group', and was deleted after Areeb's apprehension. The defense maintained that Areeb's presence in the area was natural as his workplace is located nearby.
Identification Issues and Judicial Caution
For accused Athar and Naved, the defense sought bail citing natural proximity, as they reside near the demolition site. They argued that their faces were not clearly visible in the video footage—an observation with which the court agreed. The prosecution claimed Athar was identified through a constable's statement and the "jacket he was wearing," prompting the defense to question the reliability of identification based solely on clothing.
In Naved's case, the investigating officer asserted he was "apparently visible" at the 16-second mark of the footage. The court viewed this claim with caution, particularly in light of the pending facial recognition analysis. This judicial scrutiny underscores the challenges in establishing clear evidence in cases involving crowd violence and video identification.
The court's reservations and the detailed arguments from both sides highlight the complexities of this legal proceeding, which stems from a contentious anti-encroachment operation in the national capital.
