Court calls MLAs history-sheeters, denies bail

NEW DELHI: Calling the Aam Aadmi Party MLAs “history-sheeters” and saying there was prima facie "a premeditated criminal conspiracy" in the alleged assault of Delhi chief secretary Anshu Prakash on Monday night, a Delhi court denied bail to Amanatullah Khan and Prakash Jarwal on Friday.
“The circumstances, if considered overall, prima facie point towards a premeditated criminal conspiracy.Though bail is the rule and jail an exception, the bail applications cannot be considered in a routine and casual manner, they being history-sheeters,” explained metropolitan magistrate Shefali Barnala Tandon.
The two legislators have been charged under the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty (Section 332), assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty(353) and criminal conspiracy(120B) for the purported attack on Prakash.
Police investigation, the judge said, was at a "premature stage” and the prosecution's argument that the accused would hamper the probe could not be “overlooked”. Describing the allegations against the two legislators as “very serious”, the court elaborated that Prakash was allegedly called for a meeting at an “odd hour” despite his “reluctance”. The court also considered the prosecution's arguments that the senior bureaucrat was assaulted, abused, manhandled and criminally intimidated by the MLAs.
Seeking bail for Jarwal, advocates B S Joon and Irshad argued that the accusations against their client were "completely false and fabricated", made with the ulterior motive to "destablise the government of Delhi". The defence also said the "personal vendetta" between the centre and the state governments was behind this "false" case. The counsels refuted it was a criminal conspiracy, and also argued that Prakash was not an "illiterate man" and so there was no plausible explanation for his long delay in registering the FIR.
Additional public prosecutor Atul Srivastava opposed the bail plea, citing V K Jain, the CM's advisor, as its prime witness. “Jain corroborated the version of the complainant, therefore it cannot be said that it is a false and afterthought complaint," argued Srivastava. “They assaulted him (Prakash) in such a way that it could have resulted in his death. I will press for Section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide).”
Srivastava pointed out that the two legislators were already embroiled in cases, Jarwal in three cases of a similar nature and Khan in eight cases of criminal intimidation and for trespass and threatening.
Prakash's counsel, Rajeev Mohan, said there was no urgency to hold the meeting at such an odd hour. He added that the CM and deputy CM hadn’t stopped the legislators from assaulting the bureaucrat, the intention being to display the "muscle power" of the state government and to "teach bureaucracy a lesson".
The court, however, dismissed the plea of police seeking custody of the MLAs, saying there was no new ground necessitating police custody.