A Delhi court firmly dismissed bail applications for all five individuals accused of violence near Turkman Gate. This decision came on Wednesday after a thorough review of the case details.
Court Cites Attack on Administration
Judicial Magistrate Sayesha Chadha delivered the ruling. She emphasized that the incident involved more than simple assault. The court noted relentless stone-throwing, significant damage to government property, and injuries to police officials. These actions represent a direct attack on the administration itself.
Details of the Violent Incident
The violence erupted on the intervening night of January 6 and 7. It occurred during an anti-encroachment demolition drive near the Faiz-e-Ilahi mosque at Turkman Gate. Police officers executing the court-ordered drive faced an alleged attack from the accused.
The Delhi High Court had originally mandated the demolition exercise. The accused individuals reportedly targeted the police personnel involved in this official operation.
Court's Reasoning for Denying Bail
Magistrate Chadha pointed to serious allegations against the accused. She stated that considering the current stage of the investigation, rejecting the bail applications was the appropriate course of action.
The court did not accept the defence argument of premature arrest. It carefully reviewed the sequence of events presented by Delhi Police:
- The apprehension of the accused on the night of January 6-7.
- The registration of the First Information Report (FIR) at 10:07 AM.
- The formal arrest later that same evening.
This timeline, according to the court, supported the police's actions.
Evidence Considered by the Court
The judicial magistrate relied on key documents to reach her conclusion. The FIR and medico-legal case reports for the injured police officers played a crucial role. This evidence led the court to determine that continued police custody for the accused was necessary.
The five men facing these charges are identified as Aarib, Kashif, Kaif, Adnan, and Sameer.
Defence Arguments and Court's Findings
Lawyers for the defence claimed that three of the accused—Kaif, Kashif, and Areeb—were not present at the violence site. The court examined this claim and found it lacking.
CCTV footage from the area clearly showed their presence at the spot during the incident. Investigators provided photographs extracted from this footage. Additionally, call detail records produced by the investigating officer firmly established Areeb's location at the scene.
The court rejected the alibi after reviewing this concrete digital evidence.
This ruling underscores the court's stance on violence during official operations. It highlights the legal consequences for actions deemed an attack on public administration and law enforcement.
