Court frames charges against ex-Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, others in 2020 Delhi riots case

Court noted that there are prima facie grounds to presume the accused's involvement in the offences

Court noted that there are prima facie grounds to presume the accused's involvement in the offences
Court noted that there are prima facie grounds to presume the accused's involvement in the offences

2020 Delhi riots case: Unlawful assembly, instigation by Jahan and Saifi, and violence against police were reported by public witnesses

A Delhi court has framed charges against former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan and 12 others for rioting, unlawful assembly, and attempt to murder in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

The accused persons comprising Jahan, Khalid Saifi, Vikram Pratap, Samir Ansari, Sabu Ansari, Iqbal Ahmed, Anzaar, Mohd. Ilyas, Mohd. Bilal Saifi, Salim Ahmed, Mohd. Yameen and Sharif Khan were discharged for offences under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act.

The court, led by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, framed charges for offences like rioting, assault, and attempt to murder under various sections of the IPC.

It noted that there were prima facie grounds to presume the accused’s involvement in the alleged offences.

The accused persons were charged for their alleged involvement in riotous activities, obstructing public servants, and attempting to cause harm to deter them from their duties during the riots.

The court observed that public witnesses mentioned the unlawful assembly, instigation by Jahan and Saifi, and violence against the police despite requests to disperse.

While framing charges, the court considered the statements of the injured head constable and noted the need for further clarification during the trial.

The case involves allegations that the accused, including Jahan and Saifi, participated in a protest during the riots, refusing to abide by police orders to disperse.

The court discharged them under specific sections of the Arms Act, citing the prosecution’s claim that a juvenile possessed the firearm used in the incident.

[With Inputs from IANS]

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here