Home Legal News [Delhi Riots] No Evidence to Indicate Role of Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra & Parvesh Verma In Delhi Riots: Delhi Police Tells Delhi HC

[Delhi Riots] No Evidence to Indicate Role of Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra & Parvesh Verma In Delhi Riots: Delhi Police Tells Delhi HC

by Shreya
Delhi Riots - Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra

The Delhi Police has submitted an affidavit before the Delhi High Court claiming that no evidence has surfaced so far to indicate any role played by BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma in either instigating or participating in the Delhi Riots

Kapil-Mishra-Anurag-Thakur-and-Parvesh-Verma
From L – R : Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma

The affidavit is submitted before the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan in response to a batch of writ petitions seeking registration of FIRs in respect of statements which allegedly instigated riots in North Eastern parts of Delhi during the last week of February.

Also Read: Delhi HC Directs Delhi Govt To Expeditiously Process Application Seeking Compensation For Injury Sustained During Delhi Riots

Progress so far in Delhi Riots Case

The Crime Branch has further submitted that 751 criminal cases under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Prevention to Damage of Public Property Act, UAPA have already been registered as well as three SITs headed by DCPs have been constituted to investigate heinous cases.

The affidavit further claims that the prima facie investigation has revealed that the said riots did not occur due to any “sporadic or spontaneous violence” but appears to be a part of a well thought of “conspiracy to destabilise the harmony in the society”.

The report stated:

‘Petitioners have selectively chosen certain speeches and incidents to further their hidden agenda. It is stated that the selective outrage by the petitioners towards specific incidents, while ignoring other abhorrent incident of violence, itself manifest that the present petitions are not bonafide but motivated. It is the bonafide belief of the deponent that the present case is nothing but repetition of the same mischief which was called out and cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonantalla u. Union of India.’

While claiming that he Petitioners are trying to take the court’s attention away from the true and correct facts, Crime Branch has argued that the use of terms like ‘political vendetta’, ‘state sponsored pogrom’, ‘persecution’ and ‘malicious prosecution’ etc. clearly appears to be part of some undisclosed agenda when facts clearly show otherwise and clearly reflect lack of bonfides.

Crime Branch further stated:

‘… exercising the fundamental right of dissent is and should be respected. However, no person can be allowed to commit breach of law, indulge in violence, arson and riotous activity causing danger to life, limb and property of innocent citizens under the garb of exercise of fundamental right of free speech and assembly. I respectfully state and submit that the encroachment and blockage of public roads is certainly not a facet of fundamental right of protest.’

It is submitted that in guise of PIL, some of the petitioners have been surreptitiously seeking to make prayers for orders which are in the nature of anticipatory bail and/or for quashing of the FIR. The said prayers, it is argued, are being made by activists or completely unrelated persons in an “utter abuse” of the PIL jurisdiction of the court.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

× Chat with us on WhatsApp