Sharif Malik, whose allegations type the premise of Delhi Police’s controversial search of advocate Mehmood Pracha’s residence final week, was accused of rioting and try and homicide within the Delhi riots. However a month in the past, police instructed the court docket that Malik’s arrest wasn’t required.
On November 24, Malik secured pre-arrest bail in three FIRs linked to the riots filed at Dayalpur police station, with little opposition from the prosecution.
Police, in a report submitted to a Delhi court docket in August, stated that Pracha “referred to as” riot sufferer Irshad Ali, whose store had been set on hearth through the riots, and instructed him that Malik was “witness” to the incident and if he connected Malik’s criticism, it could make Ali’s case “stronger”.
Ali denies Pracha referred to as him, and has instructed The Indian Express that he went to satisfy him on his personal.
Ali’s case itself is fraught, in accordance with the sequence of occasions primarily based on police and court docket information accessed by The Indian Specific.
Certainly, the court docket placed on report the defence’s questioning of the equity and impartiality of the Delhi Police on this case.
March 4, 2020: On February 24, Irshad Ali complained to police that his rented mattress store at Moonga Nagar was ransacked and set ablaze by a mob, leading to a lack of Rs 17-18 lakh to him and Rs 10 lakh to store-owner Rekha Garg.
Delhi Police named a number of individuals, together with councillor Tahir Hussain, former member of the Aam Aadmi Party; Gulfam; Mohd Abid; Arshad Qayyum; Shahdab; Shah Alam; Riyasat Ali and Rashid Saifi as accused on this case.
August 7-8: In the course of the listening to of bail pleas of two of those accused, Abid and Qayumm — each represented by lawyer Javed Ali — Further Periods Decide Vinod Yadav was instructed about two subsequent complaints by Irshad Ali in Might and July.
In these, Irshad Ali alleged that police had falsely implicated the accused within the case and that “the individuals who looted his store will not be Muslims”.
August 10: Lawyer Javed Ali included Irshad Ali’s complaints within the bail utility of Abid and Qayyum. The court docket requested the DCP (North-East) to file a report on these complaints by Irshad Ali.
August 22: The Delhi Police filed its report in court docket that Irshad Ali had now named three residents — Deepak, Navneet alias Nanu, and Mintu — however when referred to as earlier than ACP (Gokalpuri), he stated he knew them solely by identify and didn’t determine them within the video.
Police stated that Irshad Ali instructed them that Pracha — who was initially representing one other accused Gulfam in the identical case — referred to as him to his workplace and instructed him that he has an eyewitness, particularly Sharif Malik. And that if Irshad Ali attaches Malik’s criticism to his personal, Ali’s case would develop into stronger.
Of their report submitted to the court docket on August 22, the police made two key allegations:
One, the assertion by Malik, himself wished in an analogous case registered at Dayalpur police station, that he “witnessed the entire incident” of rioting was “false, concocted and fabricated” by Pracha and despatched to varied places of work by him by way of his e-mail ID.
Two, Irshad Ali’s July 2020 affidavit — confirming on oath the complaints connected have been his — which was a part of Abid and Qayyum’s bail petition, was discovered attested by Notary Public Sanjay Saxena, who had died three years in the past.
Saxena’s spouse Sangeeta Saxena is claimed to have instructed the police that she has no data of any doc attested by her husband’s stamp.
ASJ Yadav, in his order on August 22, stated the matter must be investigated both by the Crime Department or Particular Cell and requested the Delhi Police Commissioner to go acceptable instructions.
The Particular Cell registered an FIR on August 22 alleging false criticism, false proof and forgery.
August 27: ASJ Yadav stated that Delhi Police Commissioner himself had knowledgeable the court docket that an FIR had been registered and that “progress of investigation shall be submitted” earlier than the court docket “as and when directed”.
November 24: Delhi Police didn’t oppose the anticipatory bail pleas filed by Sharif Malik in an rioting and try and homicide case, and two related circumstances registered by Dayalpur police station.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that “the applicant has joined the investigation and for the current, he isn’t required to be arrested within the matter. Nonetheless, it’s requested that the applicant could also be directed to proceed to hitch the investigation,” the court docket stated whereas granting pre-arrest bail to Sharif on separate however related orders within the three circumstances.
December 3:The Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted bail to Riyasat Ali, who had additionally been named as an accused within the Irshad retailer looting case. It stated that the presence of Riyasat Ali “will not be established by way of CCTV footages/on the spot”. “… nevertheless, with out commenting on the deserves of the prosecution case, I’m of the view that the petitioner deserves bail,” the court docket stated. Equally, Shah Alam, and Mohd Rehan have been additionally granted bail. On December 9, Gulfam was granted bail by a Delhi court docket.
December 17: Qayyum and Abid have been granted bail on grounds of parity. The Periods Courtroom of ASJ Yadav placed on report three arguments made by the defence on the dealing with of the case by the Delhi Police.
That each had been “falsely implicated” by the police; that investigation within the matter “has not been performed in an neutral and honest method”; and that individuals “belonging to a specific neighborhood have been falsely roped in by the investigating company”.
“There isn’t a digital proof accessible towards the candidates, both within the type of any CCTV footage(s) or their CDR location, which may prima facie present their presence on the scene of crime on the date of incident,” the court docket famous on the defence argument.
December 24: The Particular Cell, issuing a discover to Pracha, stated: “One criticism… by Sharif Malik… respect to arson and rioting… was drafted underneath your instruction in your pc in your workplace and acquired signature and thumb impression… in your workplace itself… Malik has denied having despatched any of the copy… however a number of such complaints have been obtained in police station bearing identify of… Malik.”
“Investigation performed up to now has offered affordable substance within the allegations, so an order of search and seizure has been obtained… for restoration and seizure of incriminating paperwork out of your workplace and computer systems,” the police stated.
Requested about Malik being granted bail precisely a month earlier than the searches, Ved Prakash Surya, DCP Northeast, stated: “We by no means arrested Sharif. He filed for anticipatory bail and was granted the identical by the court docket. We don’t suppose there’s any connection to Pracha right here.”
A senior police officer from NorthEast district stated, “Granting bail is the prerogative of the court docket. There may need been complaints towards the accused and on account of inadequate proof, Malik was granted bail. The police will not be concerned right here. Additionally, the district police gave a report back to the court docket. Subsequent searches and investigation is completed by Particular Cell. The bails aren’t linked to the Particular Cell investigation.”
Following the searches, police stated that whereas advocate Javed Ali cooperated, it confronted opposition through the searches at Pracha’s workplace.
In his computer systems, the Particular Cell claimed, it was searching for “incriminating paperwork, allegedly drafted by him/on his directions possibly” whereas referring to Malik’s criticism and the Part 160 CrPC reply given to police within the identify of or behalf of complainant Irshad Ali.
On this reply, Irshad Ali is claimed to have spoken in favour of the accused individuals.
Police have now filed one other FIR towards Pracha for allegedly obstructing the investigation through the search operation.
Pracha represents no less than three accused within the “bigger conspiracy case” within the Delhi riots and plenty of different accused in riot circumstances registered by police. He has referred to as the searches an assault on due course of, authorized career and Structure of India.
With Jignasa Sinha