"How FIRs Were Registered In Two Police Stations When Epicenter Was House Of Tahir Hussain?" Delhi Court Seeks DCP's Response In Riots Case
A Delhi Court has sought a report from DCP, North East district to explain as to how two FIRs were registered by the Delhi Police in different police stations when the epicenter of riots or the place from where the alleged petrol bombs and firing happened was the house of former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain. The development came after Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav took note of the...
A Delhi Court has sought a report from DCP, North East district to explain as to how two FIRs were registered by the Delhi Police in different police stations when the epicenter of riots or the place from where the alleged petrol bombs and firing happened was the house of former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain.
The development came after Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav took note of the fact that there was no satisfactory explanation given on the aforesaid aspect by ACP, Gokalpuri and SHO, DayalPur Police Station.
"In this view of the matter, DCP/NE is hereby directed to file a report in the matter clarifying as to how FIR in two separate Police stations were registered when epicentre of the riots/place from where the petrol bombs were being thrown and firing was being done was the house of accused Tahir Hussain, on or before the next date of hearing," the Court said.
The Court was hearing arguments on charge on behalf of Hussain in FIR 91/2020 Police Station DayalPur.
During the course of hearing, Advocate Rizwan appearing for Hussian submitted that another FIR 101/2020 registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas contain similar allegations against Hussain which were that petrol bombs were thrown from the top of his house to persons belonging to different community.
It was thus submitted by him that the allegations in the FIR in question were similar however it was registered in another police station.
During the course of hearing, SPP DK Bhatia had sought adjournment of 30 days time to initiate arguments on charge on the ground that the supplementary chargesheet is about to be filed before the CMM Court.
"The supplementary chargesheet sought to be filed has so far not been filed. This in any case can not be a ground to seek adjournment because after the supplementary chargesheet comes to this court after committal, the prosecution can always seek amendment of charge," The Court said at the outset.
The matter will now be heard on September 17.
Title: State v. Tanvir Malik etc.