Monday August 26, 2019
Home India 1984 anti-Sik...

1984 anti-Sikh Riots: Special Investigation Team (SIT) moves High Court For Cancellation of Bail to Sajjan Kumar

the Special Investigation Team today moved the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the trial court to Sajjan Kumar in a murder case of three sikhs

0
//
During 1984 anti-Sikh Riots, Wikimedia

New Delhi, Jan 25, 2017: The Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the trial court to Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in the murder case of three Sikhs was moved today by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Justice S P Garg, before whom the plea came up for hearing, asked SIT how the trial court order is illegal and said the respondent is facing trial in other matters also; then how is it possible that he could be present at all spots.

“Where is the illegality in the trial court’s order. 32 years have passed and now you (SIT) are seeking to interrogate him (Kumar) in the matter pertaining to the incident. Prior to November 2016 there was no complaint against him by the present complainant. Suddenly, the complainant has grievances against him (Kumar),” the court’s statement mentioned. It was hearing a plea by SIT, which came in appeal against the trial court’s December 21 last year order that allowed Kumar an anticipatory bail.

NewsGram brings to you latest new stories in India.

Kumar had been asked to cooperate in the probe and not to influence any witness related to the case. While granting relief to the former MP on a personal bond of Rs one lakh and am assurance of the like amount, the trial court had also stated that he will not be allowed to leave the country without the permission of the court.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, who appeared for SIT, submitted before the bench that the cases filed against Kumar falling in jurisdiction of Janakpuri and Vikaspuri police stations in west Delhi, were lodged after delay of over 30 years as the complaintant was “scared” to birng out the name of the accused due to his “powerful” position.

The ASG submitted that since his name has cropped up during the course of investigation in the case, he needs to be questioned and his custody is also important as he has to be confronted with the evidence in the matter. He said that as per complainant Harvinder Singh, whose counsel also sought cancellation of Kumar’s bail, on the fateful day at around 11 AM, the accused was spotted leading a mob.

Go to NewsGram and check out news related to political current issues.

To this, the court asked the ASG, apart from the complainant’s affidavit on the basis of which the cases were filed, if he has anything more to establish the fact that the respondent here was present at the spot. “Do you (SIT) have anything more to establish about his alleged involvement. We are not disputing the incident but his involvement is there or not is a question,” it said. It later asked the ASG to come up with records relating to the other case he is allegedly associated with and for which he has or is facing trial, mentioned PTI.

“There are other cases also against him (Kumar) relating to incidents at different places on the same day. So place before this court, if any, the material to show that the person against whom you have come was present at all spots at different times,” the court mentioned, adding that “it is not possible for a person to be present at all spots at one time”. The ASG asked for time till February 23 by when he could produce all the needed records.

The complaint in Janakpuri pertains to the assasination of two Sikhs — Sohan Singh and his son-in-law Avtar Singh — on November 1, 1984. The other relates to Gurcharan Singh who was burnt on November 2, 1984 in the jurisdiction of Vikaspuri police station. As per the complaint, Gurcharan, who was half burnt, remained bed-ridden for 29 years. He passed away three years ago.

Look for latest news from India in NewsGram.

Seeking anticipatory bail from the trial court, Kumar had argued that his name had come up in the case after a seemingly long time (32 years) and it was motivated politically. Searching for a setting aside of the trial court decision, the high court was told that Kumar was called in twice by SIT but he had showed up only once. SIT has also submitted that delay in registration of FIR and not assigning the investigation of the cases to an independent agency clearly imply the influence of accused/ respondent at that time also.

SIT, which was set up in February 2015 on the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs to re-investigate the shut case, said that it submitted a detailed status report of the ongoing investigation before the trial court. However, “without appreciating the relevant facts and without taking the established position of law into consideration and on very erroneous grounds, the trial court judge had passed the order and allowed the anticipatory bail applications of the accused/respondent,” it said.

– prepared by Durba Mandal of NewsGram. Twitter: @dubumerang

 

 

Next Story

Delhi High Court Directs Private Clinic to Continue with the Stem Cell Treatment

The clinic, which is administering the medicine, cannot function under the new rules until the licence is duly obtained

0
Order
Delhi High Court. Source- Wikimedia

In an interim relief, the Delhi High Court has directed a private clinic to continue with the stem cell treatment being provided to the patients till its further orders.

The court’s interim direction came while hearing various petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to put stem cell therapy in the category of new drugs.

The petitioners were being provided stem cell treatment in Nutech Mediworld Clinic in Green Park here.

A Division Bench of justices Anu Malhotra and Talwant Singh said that all details of treatment being provided to the petitioners by the clinic be placed on record with an affidavit.

Representational image.

The court has sought the response of Centre and Indian Council of Medical Research to file reply on the petition and listed the matter for September 4 for further hearing.

The court has directed authorities concerned to examine whether the products being administered to the petitioners, prima facie, fall within the scope of the expression ‘new drugs’ as defined under Rule 2(1) (w) of New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019 and communicate the view to the petitioners and the said clinic.

Also Read- LG CNS, Microsoft to Develop Cloud-based Enterprise Solutions

On account of the Centre’s fresh notification on ‘New Drugs and Clinical Rule 2019’, some medications used for the treatment would fall under the definition of ‘new drug’ and require approval from the authority concerned.

The clinic, which is administering the medicine, cannot function under the new rules until the licence is duly obtained. (IANS)