[Red Fort Violence] Delhi Court Rejects Delhi Police’s Request Seeking Deep Sidhu’s Police Remand In ASI FIR

first_imgNews Updates[Red Fort Violence] Delhi Court Rejects Delhi Police’s Request Seeking Deep Sidhu’s Police Remand In ASI FIR Nupur Thapliyal19 April 2021 4:01 AMShare This – xDismissing the plea of Delhi Police, Delhi Court on Monday refused to send Deep Sidhu, accused in relation to the violence that broke out at Red Fort on Republic Day, to 4 days police remand in connection with another FIR registered against him on the complaint of Archaeological Survey of India alleging damage to the historic monument and vandalism by rioters. However, the Court has sent Sidhu…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginDismissing the plea of Delhi Police, Delhi Court on Monday refused to send Deep Sidhu, accused in relation to the violence that broke out at Red Fort on Republic Day, to 4 days police remand in connection with another FIR registered against him on the complaint of Archaeological Survey of India alleging damage to the historic monument and vandalism by rioters. However, the Court has sent Sidhu to 14 days judicial custody and will hear the matter next on 4th May 2021.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Gajendra Singh Nagar turned down the demand of the  Delhi Police seeking police remand for 4 days in a view to conduct investigation on various aspects which resulted in the alleged violence.Alongside this, bail application moved by Sidhu in the aforesaid FIR shall be heard by the Court on April 23. Deep Sidhu’s Arguments before the CourtDuring the course of hearing, Abhishek Gupta appearing on behalf of Deep Sidhu vehemently opposed the request of police remand by arguing that first, both the FIRs rest on similar allegations and since Sidhu has been interrogated at length earlier by the police, there was no need for such police remand now; second, such an arrest would be mala fide and per se illegal; third, the investigating agency is playing a fraud on the investigation process and fourth, one single day of Sidhu’s incarceration would be in violation of his rights under Art. 21 of the Constitution. “The entire evidence is only this. Why do they need my custody for this now? They can ask their brother investigating officer for the said evidences. This is mala fide arrest. The arrest itself is illegal. The order was communicated to us on Saturday and then they rearrested me again. This is a mala fide intention of the investigating agency. The are playing fraud with the investigation. Any single day of his incarceration is in violation of his rights under Art. 21.” Gupta argued. Arguing that the investigating officers were “acting like emperors”, Gupta questioned the process of arrest effected by the Crime Branch immediately after Sidhu was granted bail in another FIR. At this juncture, Deep Sidhu, who was produced from Jail through videoconferencing mode, made submissions before the Court by stating thus: “I am in the same office. I was investigated by the team during the police custody in previous case. I will co-operate fully. They know the entire story. My mobile locations, telephone records, CCTV footage etc are with them.” Prosecution’s Arguments before the CourtOn the other hand, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution refuted the argument of the two FIRs being placed on similar allegations by arguing that nowhere did the defense challenged the same before the High Court for seeking quashing of the FIRs. According to the PP, it was submitted that the law permits the Investigating Officer to effect the arrest and the same cannot be questioned by the defense in any manner. “Did they go to the High Court since all these months that similar FIRs be quashed since they are based on identical facts. The answer is no. First, the IO has right to arrest; second, there is a need for remand and third, factual matrix of the case is clear that Police Custody is needed.” PP argued.About the CaseDeep Sidhu was arrested again hours in another FIR filed by the Archaeological Survey of India after being granted bail in the FIR pertaining to red fort violence case connection with the violence that broke out during the farmer’s tractor rally on Republic Day. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Gunjan Kumar Srivastava, Superintendent Archaeologist alleging that a mob barged inside the Lahore Gate, damaged electrical fittings of illuminated lights, charged towards the Red Fort rampart and forcefully hoisted a flag on the pole where the Hon’ble PM hoists Indian National Flag on independence day. The said FIR has been registered under sec. 147, 148, 149, 153, 452, 34 of IPC along with sec. 25, 27 of Arms Act, Sec. 3, 4 of PDPP Act, Sec. 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act and Sec. 30A, 30B of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. Stating that Red Fort is a UNESCO World Heritage Monument which is protected under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the FIR alleges that on the Republic Day at around 12:10 PM, about 25 tractors and 200-300 protestors entered Gyanpath area through Netaji Subhas Marg and attempted to push their way into the Red Fort through the Lahori Gate.Grant of Bail to Deep Sidhu in Red Fort Violence FIRWhile granting bail to Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge Neelofer Abida Perveen observed thus: “The prosecution’s case rests largely and on contents of video recordings and footage available and accessible to all on social media sites in public domain. There is a remote possibility of applicant being able to interfere with the content on such platform.” Bail was granted subject to his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Court.Click Here To Read OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more