Monday 10 December 2012

Additional Sessions Judge Savita Rao acquitted two men from Jammu and Kashmir and one from Pakistan who had been arrested by Delhi Police in 2007, allegedly outside Dilli Haat, observing that “the prosecution had failed to prove any links between the men and any banned terrorist organisation.”
An FIR registered at the time mentions that secret information had been received of an LeT attack during 1857’s 150th anniversary celebrations were underway in the Capital. Additional information of a delivery of a consignment at Dilli Haat’s entry gate was received on April 26, 2007. On the date stated, while the Police watched guard, a police informer recognised one of them and on the ‘signal’ of Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, they were nabbed. The Dilli Haat guards were registered as public witnesses.
One of men allegedly identified himself as Shafaquat Iqbal, a member of LeT acting on the direction of his commander in Pakistan.
They were, however, illegally detained despite the Police’s celebrated efforts of information-gathering and sleight-of-hand-nabbing.
One of them, Mohd Hassan, says he had arrived in Kathmandu from Pakistan and was arrested by Indian Intelligence enroute to his hotel. He was then brought to Delhi. The public witnesses in the case could not identify the accused persons in the court; they said the persons had their faces covered when they were nabbed.
Officials from the nearest Police station, Sarojini Nagar were not involved and an RTI reveals that no report was registered at the Sarojini Nagar PS. A PCR van station outside the market did not notice anything unusual even after an 8-hour-long raid was undertaken by 25 police officials. Even when there was a possibility of detection of bombs, the Crime Branch was no informed.  The members of the raid were not carrying a disposal kit themselves and did not have bullet-proof jackets on. Later, the recovered material could not be produced and no links to terrorists in either J&K or Pakistan could be established.
The prosecution had only the FIR as a proof and nothing beyond it.

No comments:

Post a Comment