Editor Mr.Mayank Rawat ( Chief Editor Mr. Rohit Mishra )
New Delhi: A Delhi court has granted bail to a gangster, observing that his constitutional rights were violated due to the failure to inform him of his arrest grounds.
The court of additional sessions judge Sumit Dass outlined police obligations regarding arrest communication whilst considering the bail application of Ata Ur Rehman, who stands accused in the 2023 Tihar Jail murder of rival gangster Prince Tewatia. However, the offence/the consequence of the offence remains as it is for which the accused shall face trial or continue to face trial, the court stated in its April 15 order.
Rehman received bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000.
According to prosecution, Rehman, who leads a south Delhi gang, faces multiple murder charges, including the 2018 killing of a BJP councillor’s brother.
Delhi Police’s Special Cell arrested him in 2021 following a police encounter. Tewatia, the deceased, was a rival gang leader in south Delhi.
In April 2023, Tewatia was killed with a sharp weapon during a violent clash between rival gangs in Tihar Prison’s Jail No 3. Rehman stands as a primary accused. The case continues with charges framed against Rehman and other co-accused inmates.
The court criticised a magistrate court’s order that did not document arrest memo details during remand proceedings. This stage was deemed vital for verifying whether arrest grounds were properly communicated to the accused.
The defence counsel highlighted that a primary basis for seeking bail was the authorities’ failure to inform the accused about his arrest reasons.
The judge said, “I am unable to persuade myself that there was due compliance of the communication of the grounds of arrest…in the application seeking formal arrest and police custody, in the order passed by the court – at all the places there is nothing which could give a solace that the constitutional mandate incorporated in the CrPC has been adhered to”.
The court expressed concern over both the investigating agency’s and magistrate’s failure to follow legal requirements regarding arrest grounds documentation. It further pointed out the complete disregard for legal procedures by both the magistrate and the accused’s previous counsel.
Mayank Rawat
