Delhi riots larger conspiracy case: Judge hearing case brought back after transfer
Arguments on charge in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case will not be heard afresh as the judge, who was hearing the case for a year and a half, was brought back to the Karkardooma Court Wednesday after he was transferred.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai was hearing arguments on charge, after the conclusion of which the trial of the case will begin, since September last year. Judge Bajpai was transferred to Saket Court at May end, and Additional Sessions Judge Lalit Kumar replaced him to hear arguments on charge afresh.
On Wednesday, a new notification published on the Delhi High Court website stated that ASJ Kumar had been transferred to Saket Court, and ASJ Bajpai was brought back to Karkardooma Court, where the larger conspiracy case is pending.
Out of the 18 accused arrested in connection with the case, 12 have been in jail for over four years.
The accused are Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha (all six on bail); Tahir Husain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Athar Khan (all 12 in jail).
From October to May 2025, five accused — including former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Safoora Zargar — had completed their arguments on charge. The prosecution also completed its arguments during day-to-day hearings.
The Delhi Police Special Cell started investigating the alleged conspiracy behind the riots soon after they broke out. The police booked the 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The police argued that the 2020 Delhi riots were the result of a months-long 'deep-rooted' conspiracy allegedly hatched after the Citizenship Amendment Bill got a nod from the Cabinet in December 2019.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
32 minutes ago
- NDTV
3 Years Jail, Rs 50,000 Fine: Karnataka Plans New Bill For Crowd Management
Karnataka is set to bring in a new set of rules for crowd control -- days after the horrific stampede at Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium, in which 11 people died and 56 were injured. The new rules, which -- among other things, hold event planners and executors accountable -- envisage three years in jail and stiff fines that begin from Rs 50,000 for violators. "If the event planner does not apply before conducting the event or fails to control the crowd gathered and fails to give the compensation or violates the provisions of this Act or rules made hereunder in any other way, shall punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three tars or with fine up to five lakhs rupees or both," says the draft bill, a copy of which is with NDTV. There are penal provisions for event planners who gather crowd for commercial purposes like sports or a circus.
The Print
41 minutes ago
- The Print
Delhi HC upholds acquittal in rape case
In an order on June 17, the judge said, 'It is trite law that the accused can be convicted solely based on evidence of the prosecutrix as long as the same inspires confidence and corroboration is not necessary for the same. However, the testimony of the prosecutrix is full of inconsistencies, and the same does not inspire confidence.' The high court said the FIR was registered after a 10-day delay and the prosecution failed to provide any suitable explanation for it. Justice Amit Mahajan was hearing the state government's plea against a March 2018 verdict of the trial court acquitting the accused under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. New Delhi, Jun 19 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a rape case, saying the trial court had rightly highlighted a 'big doubt' on the woman's version of the alleged incident. Thought the incident took place on April 1, 2015, the woman alert the police until April 10 and continued to work in the accused's factory, raising suspicion about her conduct. 'Further, the fact that the wife of the accused was aware of the entire incident and would still compel the prosecutrix to join back (work in the factory) creates a big doubt regarding her (alleged victim's) version of the alleged incident. Even the evidence tendered by the husband of the prosecutrix is contradictory to the version of the prosecutrix,' the court said. The court underlined the state government's failure in establishing a prima facie case in its favour, leaving it without any 'credible ground' to allow it the leave to appeal in the present case. PTI MNR MNR AMK AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
HDFC Bank CEO moves Bombay High Court over FIR by Lilavati Trust
HDFC Bank's Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Sashidhar Jagdishan has moved the Bombay High Court, seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him by Prashant Mehta, a permanent trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which oversees Lilavati Hospital. The FIR accused him of accepting a sum of ₹2.05 crore as a bribe to help the Chetan Mehta Group allegedly retain illegal control of the charitable trust. In his petition, Mr. Jagdishan has denied all allegations, terming the complaint as 'false and motivated,' and arguing that the FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law intended to malign his reputation. When the petition came up for hearing on Wednesday (June 18, 2025) before a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh Patil, both the judges recused themselves from hearing the case. Later in the day, the case was mentioned before another Division Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shyam Chandak, but Justice Kotwal recused from hearing the matter. The matter will now be reassigned to a new Bench by an administrative order of the Chief Justice and will be heard in due course of time. The FIR lodged earlier this month on June 6, with the Bandra Police Station under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), and 420 (cheating) under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Trust through its authorised representative Prashant Mehta. The FIR was filed pursuant to an order of a Magistrate court at Bandra, following the Trust's application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A June 9 statement by the Trust claimed that the purported payment was part of a wider plan to loot the Trust and that the banker and his family enjoyed free medical treatment at the hospital. The Trust has further alleged that it has placed deposits and investments worth ₹ 48 crore with HDFC Bank since the financial year 2022, suggesting a conflict of interest. It also accused Mr. Jagdishan of offering ₹ 1.5 crore under the pretext of corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds, allegedly, to destroy and forge evidence in an internal Trust dispute. The Trust has also alleged that despite judicial findings and multiple complaints, HDFC Bank failed to act, violating Section 166 of the Companies Act and SEBI governance mandates. Senior advocate Amit Desai, representing Mr. Jagdishan, denied all the allegations and called them 'outrageous' and 'preposterous'. 'One of the most absurd allegations was that he received money from trustees. The absurdity of the allegation is that he allegedly received ₹2 crore to harass HDFC Bank borrowers,' Mr. Desai submitted. The FIR is a retaliatory measure stemming from HDFC Bank's recovery proceedings against Splendour Gems Limited — a company owned by the Mehta family — which has defaulted on loans amounting to ₹ 65.22 crore in loans as of May 31, he said. 'These actions follow recovery proceedings initiated by the bank against a company owned by the father of one of the trustees. They now use the façade of Lilavati Trust to take action against us,' Mr. Desai said. The petition read that the FIR is liable to be quashed by the High Court as it is an abuse of the legal process, and the allegations made in the FIR are wholly motivated by mala fide intentions and do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. It also said that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever to the commission of the alleged offences, if any, and in fact the FIR is nothing but a malicious retaliation in relation to the ongoing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank. 'The impugned order also ought to be quashed and set aside on the grounds that the impugned order is erroneous, bad in law as it has been passed in disregard to the mandatory requirements under Section 175 (3) of BNSS that should have been followed by the complainant.' The petition claimed that the present case against Mr. Jagdishan who has been recognised for his work by numerous awards and accolades, is nothing but a malicious attempt to scathe his name and reputation and of HDFC Bank that plays a significant role in the financial sphere of the country. 'Such criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the bank are the larger scheme of the debtors to scuttle away from paying the debt owned.'
