Jamia violence case: HC directs Delhi Police to place videos on record

New Delhi [India] March 16 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the respondents to file written submissions in four days in the Jamia Millia Islamia University violence discharge case. The court has asked Delhi police to place on record the relied upon videos.
The matter has been adjourned as the counsel representing Delhi police was not available today.
The matter has been adjourned as the counsel representing Delhi Police was not available on Thursday.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma adjourned the matter as the adjournment was sought by the Delhi Police. The proxy counsel submitted the main counsel is down with a fever. The matter may kindly be heard next week.
Meanwhile, the bench directed the respondents to file their written submissions in four days.
The bench also directed the counsels to file their Vakalatnama in two days. The bench asked, "Why did you not file your vakalatnamas?"
Some of the respondents have filed their submissions and some of them are yet to file. The bench has directed the Delhi police to place on record the relied Videos.
The matter has been listed on March 23 for further hearing.
Sharjeel Imam has filed his written submissions. He has refuted the allegations of violence levelled by the Delhi Police. In his written response to the appeal moved by the Delhi Police, said he is a victim of violence, not an offender.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on the last date had issued notice to the respondents including Sharjeel Imam. Delhi Police has challenged the discharge of accused persons including Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others.
In his response, Sharjeel Imam submitted that violence occurred during the peaceful protest at Jamia which the glasses of the respondent were broken, this fact is not indicative of that the respondent participated in the said violence. Actually, he is not an offender but a victim of violence.
He also submitted that the act of raising slogans in no manner shows his participation in the said violence that happened during the anti-CAA protest.
The Delhi High Court on February 13, issued notice on the appeal moved by Delhi Police.
However, the court summoned the trial court record (TCR) in digitised form. Though the court has refused to expunge the observations made by the trial court judge.
However, the high court said that the observations will not affect the further investigation police undertake or the trial of any accused in the matter.
The High Court had not summoned the case diary. However, it was submitted by one of the counsels that the TCR and case diary may be summoned.
The trial court made some serious remarks while discharging the accused persons on February 4. Trial court records have been summoned in digitised form. The observations have not been expunged.
The ASG appearing for Delhi police had said that the observations were misconceived and will prejudice further investigation.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain argued that the observations made by the trial court are misconceived and prejudicial to further investigation.
ASG submitted that there was an FIR and one main charge sheet and three supplementary charge sheets. The third charge sheet was disregarded by the trial court on the basis of reasoning which is misconceived in law.
On the other hand, the counsel for Asif Iqbal Tanha argued that the supplementary chargesheet was filed to fill the lacunae of the investigation.
She also argued that there is a difference between dissent and peaceful protest. The persons named in the second charge sheet were students of Jamia Milia Islamia University. Therefore their presence was not unusual there.
Delhi Police submitted that the Impugned Order is null and void, non-est and in the teeth of well-settled principles of law.
It is stated that vide the said Order, not only has the Trial Court discharged the Respondents but
also swayed by emotional and sentimental feelings, it cast aspersions on the prosecuting agency and passed gravely prejudicial and adverse remarks against the prosecuting agency and the investigation.
It was submitted that a bare perusal of the Impugned Order would reveal that Trial Court has proceeded to make observations on the merits of the matter.
It is also submitted that at the stage of discharge, the Trial ought to have only merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
In other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that
there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him, the petition stated.
It was further submitted that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, the Trial Court ought not to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is done at the stage of the trial.
Delhi's Saket court on February 4, discharged Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar and other eight accused in Jamia Milia Islamia University violence case registered in 2019.
However, the court had directed to frame charges against Mohd Iliyas alias Allen in the matter.
The trial court had made serious remarks in the case. The court had said that the accused were made scapegoats in the matter.
The court had said that police had no evidence against the accused persons.
This case pertains to violence in Jamia and surrounding areas in December 2019. Violence erupted after a clash between people protesting against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the police. Sharjeel was granted bail in 2021.
A case was registered at Jamia Nagar police station in connection with the violence that broke out on December 13, 2019. Delhi police had made 12 persons accused in the case.
Delhi Police alleged offences of rioting and unlawful assembly and Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 333, 308, 427, 435, 323, 341, 120B and 34 of IPC were invoked in the FIR.