Delhi court seeks police report on 'custodial torture' claims in anti-SIR protest
&imwidth=600&imheight=450&format=webp&quality=medium "Delhi court seeks police report on 'custodial torture' claims in anti-SIR protest")
Security tightened, barricades put up near Aakshwani Bhavan street during the INDIA bloc MPs' protest march from Makar Dwar to the Election Commission of India over the CEC Gyanesh Kumar matter, in New Delhi on Tuesday. Photograph: (ANI)
A Delhi court has sought a police report on custodial torture allegations against officers and ordered CCTV footage to be preserved while granting bail to 17 protesters.
A Delhi Court has sought a report from Delhi Police about allegations of "custodial torture" by two protestors who were arrested on Monday for demonstrating outside Parliament Street police station, asking for the registration of a first information report (FIR) against ACP Vivek Bhagat. The court also ordered the Police to preserve relevant CCTV footage from the Parliament Street police station. The court, while granting bail to 17 students and independent journalists, cited their "very young age" and that "most of them are students who were exercising their democratic right to dissent."
During the hearing at the Patiala House Court, the MLC produced before the court showed that three accused — Samarth Singh, Sheikh Yunus and Dharmender were injured. Dharmender and Samarth told the court they were beaten within the police station after being detained, while Yunus said he was injured after being pushed during the protest.
“As per their MLCs, injuries have been reported on accused Samarth Singh, which are like abrasions. Injuries have also been reported on accused Sheikh Yunus, which are like tenderness and swelling, and injuries have also been reported on accused Dharmender, which are like abrasion, contusions and swelling,” said the court.
According to investigating officers, the protestors were arrested for being part of unlawful assembly, obstructing a public place despite a prohibitory order, and allegedly manhandling police personnel, including a woman, during detention.
The police also claimed that the protestors damaged the window and rear glass of a bus in which they were detained and did not cooperate with the investigation. The defence argued that only 17 of around 50 protesters had been arrested and that the police had not produced CCTV footage of the alleged incident.
Trending Stories
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
“It is further argued that the accused persons are of very young age and most of them are students who were exercising their democratic right to dissent and to protest."
In its order, the court said, “It should be noted that allegations against the accused are serious in nature. One police official has allegedly sustained injuries as per the medico-legal case (MLC) produced by the IO.”
“However, it cannot be ignored that all the offences involved in the present case, except offences punishable under sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 190 (unlawful assembly) of the BNS are bailable in nature, and even the offence punishable under BNS Section 132 provides for maximum imprisonment of two years only,” the court said.
The court observed that these are not habitual offender have their entire "career lying ahead", so the accused were granted bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bail bond of ₹15,000, and they were prohibited from leaving the country without prior permission.
