Police plea to cancel riot accused Faizal Farooq’s bail: Delhi HC grants him time to file response

Delhi High Court has granted time to Faizal Farooq to file a reply in a plea moved by Delhi Police seeking cancellation of bail granted to him by the trial court in a case alleging participation in Delhi riots.

The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has granted 4 weeks to the Respondent to file his reply.

In Monday’s order, while issuing notice, the court had stayed the release of Farooq till further orders are passed.

On Tuesday, Farooq informed the court that despite being granted bail, he is kept in custody for some other case filed against him.

It was further informed by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, who was appearing for Farooq, that since the notice was already issued by the court, he wishes to file a detailed reply and needs time to file the same.

On June 20, a Delhi Court had granted bail to Faizal Farooq who was arrested for allegedly participating in the Delhi Riots, after noting that his own properties were damaged during the said riots.

While granting bail, the court had rejected Delhi Police's argument which stated that the applicant has terror links as he was constantly being in touch with the members of Popular Front of India, Pinjra Tod Group and members of Jamia Millia Islamia.

The court further had noted that there's nothing on record to suggest, prima facie, that the applicant was even present at the scene of occurrence when the riots were taking place.

The court had also taken note of the fact that the FIR on the complaints raised by the applicant against the damages caused to the schools owned by him were not registered by the police till March 5.

It was further observed by the court that the CCTV footage doesn't show the presence of the applicant at the scene of occurrence at the time when the riots were taking place.

While holding that the so called offending materials recovered from the terrace of the applicant's school after 16 days of the incident cannot be attributed to the applicant, the court had observed that the applicant had himself made as many as 6 calls on 24.02.2020 to the police about damage to his school but the IO did not collect the PCR forms of the said calls.