Pinjra Tod activist Devangana Kalita
A Delhi court has rejected the application of Pinjra Tod members, arrested in a Northeast Delhi riots case, seeking a court-monitored investigation.
Rejecting the application, Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana observed that accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal have an “undeniable fundamental right of fair trial which is essentially founded upon the bedrock of fair investigation. However, the apprehension of accused in the instant case seems based more on anxiety generated because of incarceration and less on any substantial basis or sound logic”.
Adit Pujari and Tusharika Mattoo, counsel for the accused, had argued that the investigation is not in accordance with accepted tenets of a fair investigation, “since it is likely that the perpetrators of the offences and ensuing riots are hand in glove with the investigating agency”.
The lawyers submitted to the court that there were multiple videos of Jafrabad protest site which were taken by the investigating agency and reporters, however “police is deliberately withholding such an important piece of evidence”.
“There appears to be a deliberate and willful failure to investigate the existence of pro-CAA rallies and hateful statements made between 22.02.2020 to 26.02.2020 made by pro-CAA persons and pro-CAA leaders of the area…,” they submitted.
“I find no valid grounds to saddle the already overburdened investigating agency with additional responsibility in the name of monitoring investigation. Prayer for calling bi-weekly reports stands rejected,” the order read.
The lawyers also sought the court’s direction to exercise its power under section 91 CrPC for obtaining call detail records of pro-CAA leaders, videos indicating movement of trucks, and WhatsApp chats of pro-CAA leaders, which was rejected.
The court said that in order to grant this relief, it has to “first presume that there are some pro-CAA leaders, then the court has to presume their names, their phone numbers, etc, and then acting upon the presumption ask the concerned agencies to preserve their record and analyse voluminous data.”
The court also referred to the investigating officer’s submission that he was in the process of collecting remaining footage, including video footage, from journalists and stated, “Investigation in itself is a very deep and strenuous exercise. It is like taking a dip every time in a deep sea to dig out the oyster carrying the pearl. Considering the intricacies involved, the Legislature in its wisdom has left the investigation within the exclusive domain of the investigation agency. In my considered opinion, neither the court nor the accused can dictate the mode and manner in which the investigation is to be conducted by the investigating officer.”
The court also held that the accused persons have failed to point out any material irregularity in the investigation carried out by the police to substantiate their doubts. On their lawyer’s reliance on two judgments to highlight that in riot cases police and prosecution are influenced by extraneous considerations, the court said, “The entire institution can not be denigrated simply because some of its members went amiss.” The court also clarified that in its previous order dated May 27, the DCP was directed to ensure fair investigation.