Delhi riots conspiracy case: Investigation not completed even after 4 years of FIR, argue Natasha-Devangna

New Delhi [India], January 31 : The Delhi Karkardooma Court heard the arguments by the counsel for Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who submitted that even after 4 years of registration of the FIR and filing of one charge sheet and four supplementary charge sheets, the investigation of the Delhi police is still pending.
It was also submitted that the daily diary should be checked to see what the police have done in 4 years.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai, after hearing part of the arguments, adjourned the matter till February 12 for further hearing.
The court is hearing an application seeking clarity on the investigation of Delhi police in the larger conspiracy case before beginning arguments on the charge.
Advocate Adit S Pujari, counsel for Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, submitted that the investigation can't be pending until charges are framed against the accused.
He submitted that Devangana and Natasha were sitting and protesting; they did not chakka jaam. Traffic was running on the road at Jafrabad. It is shown in the video, but that is not given to us.
He also referred to the police WhatsApp chats related to women who came from Jahangir Puri and went to Shaheen Bagh, North East Delhi, and finally to Jahangir Puri.
Advocate Pujari submitted that the police investigation has been pending for the last four years. People are languishing in jail. Still, they received a medal for their fantastic job.
He also referred to Delhi police submissions in other riot cases, saying that they can start arguments on charge once the investigation is completed.
In this case, the police are saying that they can start arguments on charge even without completing an investigation, Pujari argued.
Counsel for Natasha and Devangana submitted that they are students with immense academic credentials and have not had any previous prosecutions.
He argued that CCTV is the best investigation. Why they are not producing it? They know that I will be discharged.
They are bound to produce the evidence lying in their possession. They can't keep it separate for further investigation, Pujari argued.
Advocate Pujari submitted that the court has the monitory jurisdiction to monitor the investigation. The court may ask them to produce the material on record.
Further investigation can't be done without permission. You (police) need to get permission for it, he added.
The court is hearing an application filed in September 2023 seeking clarity on the investigation of the Delhi police.
It is contended that the case of the alleged "larger conspiracy" cannot and ought not to proceed until the prosecution clears its stand as to the culmination of such a conspiracy and the people involved in such a conspiracy.
The FIR in this case was registered on March 6, 2020. Delhi police have filed the Final Form Report, followed by the four Supplementary Charge Sheets (SCS) till now.
It is stated that even after 42 months of investigation, Delhi police in the last SCS, i.e., SCS-4, have submitted that the investigation in this case is continuing.
A query was raised on behalf of Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita as to the status of the investigation prior to the commencement of arguments on charge.
It is stated in the charge sheet filed on September 16, 2020, at page 2690, that the criminal conspiracy is also continuing. No SCS subsequent to the said charge sheet has averred that the conspiracy is complete.
For any arguments on discharge on the part of the applicants, it is pertinent that the prosecution state on record the status of their investigation and whether it is completed or not. Because if arguments on charge begin on the basis of the present material on record, the prosecution has the ability to place further material on record (despite having taken more than 42 months to complete the investigation) to fill in lacunae that will be pointed out by the applicants to indicate how the chain of conspiracy is neither complete nor investigated and, as such, seek discharge.
It is therefore prayed that this Court call upon the investigating agency to peruse the case diaries by exercising powers under Sections 156/157 r/w 172 CrPC so as to ascertain the actual manner of conduct of the investigation over the past 42 months in the present case.
Earlier, the court had directed to hear arguments on charges on a daily basis.