[ad_1]
A Delhi Court Wednesday reserved its order on former Congress minister Jagdish Tytler’s anticipatory bail plea in a case related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots involving arson in a North Delhi gurdwara.
Medical conditions, mental health issues and old age were cited by Tytler’s counsel as grounds to seek anticipatory bail. The matter will now be heard on August 4.
In May, the CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet against Tytler based on statements of new witnesses who claimed they saw him allegedly instigating the mob which had assembled at Azad Market’s Pul Bangash Gurdwara on November 1, 1984, following which it was burnt down and three persons were killed. The chargesheet alleged that Tytler “incited, instigated and provoked” the mob, after which he had moved an anticipatory bail plea at Rouse Avenue Court on August 1.
Public Prosecutor Amit Jindal told The Indian Express that statements of two new witnesses, who had never spoken regarding the case earlier, were recorded during the investigation.
Tytler’s counsel, Manu Sharma, argued that closure reports filed by the CBI in 2009 and 2014 proved he was innocent and he was at Teen Murti Bhavan when gurdwara was set ablaze, on the basis of a DVD which the agency relied on while filing a closure report. “In 2009, the CBI recommended no action… In 2014, again the court recommended no action against Tytler. But 11 months before a general election… the CBI decides… there is a case…,” said Sharma.
The summoning orders, he said, suffered from a “serious infirmity” as they were passed based on a few witnesses who showed up after decades.
Most Read
HS Phoolka, the counsel for the complainant, argued that the grant of bail was not necessary since accused had committed offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for more than 7 years. He argued that the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused threatening witnesses needed to be looked at. “It is not a case of three murders, it is a case of genocide…” he said. “Threats took place for a closure report. Imagine what would happen for a chargesheet,” he said.
Sharma said the delay in the witnesses coming forward tilted the case in favour of the accused. “… The new witnesses have to explain why they didn’t come forward earlier during trial,” he said.
“Witnesses react differently. Just because there is a delay in their statements doesn’t mean they’re lying,” Jindal countered.
[ad_2]
Source link
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here