Delhi Court decides to hear arguments on charges separately in 10 riots cases against Tahir Hussain, other accused
Aug 19, 2022
New Delhi [India], August 19 : A Delhi Court on Thursday agreed to hear the arguments on framing of charges separately in 10 riots cases against Ex-AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain and other accused persons. The Court was informed by the Delhi Police that the time, date and locations of the rioting incidents were different. The Counsel for the accused had urged the court to hear the arguments on framing of charges in all cases altogether.
Additional Sessions judge Pulastaya Pramachala after hearing the submissions of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey agreed that the arguments for framing of charges will be heard separately as the offences were separate in each case. The Court has listed the matters on different dates for arguments.
The Counsel for Tahir Hussain on the last date of hearing had contended that more than one case has been registered against the accused for the same incident and for the same alleged conspiracy. Different charge sheets have been filed against him.
On the query raised by the Court, SPP Madhukar Pandey submitted that the subject matter of each case like time, date, location and victims are different in each different case. The cases were registered on the basis of statements of witnesses and the accused in those cases were not common.
These 10 cases pertain to different Police Stations of Northeast Delhi and are related to rioting, arson, murder and attempts to murder along with other sections related to damage to public and private properties.
The Court, meanwhile, adjourned the hearing on the bail plea of Sohaib Alam for August 25, after hearing the submission of SPP Amit Prasad that the chronology of rioting incidents would be presented in the Court. He also said that while deciding the bail applications the scale of violence, the number of incidents in different localities should be considered.
The Counsel for the accused had argued that there was a delay in the registration of FIR. The accused was present at the location of the incident.
