|
Delhi's Patiala House Court on Saturday rejected the application for 7 days of police custody of 8 accused and sent them to judicial custody till Monday.
Their bail pleas are also listed for hearing on Monday. The court granted bail to 9 accused persons yesterday. Delhi police had arrested 17 persons from outside of Parliament Street Police Station on Sunday. They are accused of raising slogans and scuffling with the police. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Sahil Monga declined the Delhi Police plea seeking police custody and remanded the accused in judicial custody till Monday. Four accused persons were produced before the court after 3 days in police custody. While seeking remand of accused persons, Delhi police said that the accused persons are required to be interrogated in relation to slogan raising during the protest. The court said that raising slogans and supporting Maoists is the subject matter of the FIR lodged at Kartavya Path Police Station. These accused can't be interrogated for those offences in this FIR. It is double jeopardy. During bail hearing, advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, counsel for Gurkirat, had argued on Thursday that she was not involved in the protest or scuffle. She went to the police station after knowing that her sister Ravjot was detained by the police. She is not seen in the video. Delhi's Patiala House Court on Thursday had remanded Gurkirat Kaur, Ravjot Kaur, Kranti, and Avinash Satyapati in 2 days' police custody. 13 accused were also remanded to judicial custody. Out of 13 accused, While seeking the custody of 5 accused police on Thursday, it was submitted that custody is required, as police have to arrest 3 accused seen in the video. Delhi police had also submitted that there are not only 3 people, We don't know how many people are there. There is a conspiracy we are investigating. The Court had asked the investigation officer, "Why don't you specify that some of the accused have been arrested in another FIR? What's the scope of your investigation?" It was stated that the source of funding is to verified, as the accused are travelling, organising conferences, and using expensive mobile phones. It was submitted that custody is required for the recovery of pepper spray and identification of other accused. The investigation officer also sought judicial custody of 12 accused persons. It was submitted that their addresses are not verified. The counsel for the accused had opposed the custodial remand application. It was submitted, and it is an admitted case of a scuffle between students and police at the police station. In this case no police custody is required. No chilli spray was used at the protest site. It was also submitted that the whole area is under CCTV footage surveillance and police are seeking the remand of accused persons to identify other accused persons. It shows that police want to extract the confession statement, but the same is not admissible in law. The counsel had also argued that the video the police are relying upon is related to the incident of Kartavya Path for which an FIR is already been registered. (ANI)
|
