Delhi Riots: In Vinod Kumar’s Death Case, Accused Granted Bail

Vinod and his son Nitin had stepped out to buy medicines when they were thrashed at Gali No 1. in Brahmapuri.

With bandage on his head with frozen blood and a red left-eye, Nitin Kumar who has suffered serious injuries tells us how the mob beat his father Vinod Kumar up.

(Photo: Aishwarya S Iyer/The Quint)

In the case of 51-year-old Vinod Kumar being beaten and killed during the Delhi riots on February 24 night, Karkardooma court judge Amitabh Rawat granted bail to an accused Aleem Saifi. Kumar and his son Nitin had stepped out to buy medicines for Nitin’s son when they were pelted with stones and beaten by a mob at Gali No 1. in Brahmapuri. Their bike that was charred continued to be on the spot for days after the riots ended.

The court order from 26 November, accessed by The Quint, reads: The accused is in custody since 30.03.2020. Considering the period of custody of the accused already undergone and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C filed by applicant/accused is allowed and accused Aleem Saifi is admitted on bail on furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/­ with one local surety of the like amount.

The Quint had visited the family in the aftermath of the riots. The ground report can be read here. With forty stitches on his forehead and blood in his left eye, Nitin had narrated how his father was beaten up before him. The father-son duo worked as DJs at local weddings and functions.

There are three conditions imposed by the court on Saifi’s bail :-

• The accused shall neither leave the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the court nor shall he indulge in any kind  of criminal activity.
• He shall also not tamper with any evidence or contact any witness.
• He shall attend the court on every date of hearing or as directed by  court.

Saifi’s advocated Abdul Gaffar argued that that his client was innocent . He clarified that he was not a named accused and there was no material to show the involvement of the accused. That there were no specific allegations against Saifi of using violent force against the complainant. Regarding CCTV footage, which allegedly showed Saifi’s involvement, the lawyer argued that it ‘does not depict him as this is a case of mistaken identity and accused is not the same person as shown by the prosecution in the CCTV footage’.

The prosecution had argued that in their investigation they had arrested someone who named Saifi and also identified him in the CCTV footage near the place of Kumar’s murder. They also added that as per the Call Detailed Records, Saifi was near the place of the incident. They also said that the investigation was still under process and that evidence against accused was still being collected.

The order reads that since the accused was found near the place of incident and his face being identified by another accused in the CCTV footage for a split second is vehemently denied by the counsel of the accused, what remains is the identification by co-accused. Thereafter, Saifi was granted bail on the aforementioned conditions.