US EDITION
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

HC pulls up Delhi cops for sloppiness in Jessica case

The Delhi High Court today took the Delhi police to task for allowing Vikas Yadav, son of Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament D P Yadav and wanted in model Jessica Lal's murder case, to go scotfree after he had appeared before joint commissioner of police Amod Kanth.

A division bench comprising Justice Anil Dev Singh and Justice A K Srivastava went through the status report of the investigation into the case and asked special proseuctor S K Saxena to explain why they had not arrested Vikas Yadav as his anticipatory bail has been cancelled by the Guwahati High Court.

Saxena stated that the police have not been able to arrest Vikas as he is once again absconding and was not responding to the police notices. But the police were searching for him, he added.

The court then asked him to explain about the sureties Yadav had offered to the Guwahati court. Saxena failed to give any convincing reply saying that the details of the sureties were not available with the police.

The special prosecutor submitted that the police first wanted to ascertain whether the bail acquired by Yadav was genuine.

''Why did not the police detain him if it had doubts about the genuineness of the order''? Justice Singh asked adding that the order, moreover, had not prevented the police from arresting Vikas earlier.

Justice Singh also asked about the whereabouts of Titu, one of the associates of prime accused Manu Sharma, with whom the murder weapon was reportedly kept.

Jessica Lal was murdered in Tamarind Court, a south Delhi restaurant, on April 30 allegedly by Manu Sharma with a .22 pistol.

The judge asked why the police allowed him to go to New York. Saxena said that by the time the police could establish his role, it was three to four days and he had already left for the United States.

The court also asked the police to state the names of officials who were present in the restaurant on the night of the murder.

Delhi government counsel S K Aggarwal said that till now the police had identified Y S Dadwal, joint police commissioner, as the only government official in the list of 116 persons who were present at Tamarind Court on April 30. The list was, however, incomplete, Aggarwal added.

Asked about Dadwal's ststement regarding his presence in the restaurant, the police failed to produce his statement from the case diary. The matter was then deferred to the post-lunch session.

But when the court assembled again, the police told the court that they did not have the statement of the senior official and sought time to produce the copy of the statement.

The court directed the police to place the original case diary in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing on July 8.

To the request of the petitioner Bhrashtrachar Virodhi Morcha's counsel for a copy of the status report, which was filed in a sealed cover, Justice Singh said ''every thing cannot be made public to save certain clues from being lost.''

The court asked the Delhi police to state the status and ownership of the land on which the restaurant stood. Aggarwal submitted that Bina Ramani and her husband, the owners of the restaurant, were not the citizens of India.

The court directed the police to state aspects like whether the restaurant had Delhi Development Authority clearance or if it violated provisions of the Archealogical Survey of India.

As per the specifications of the ASI, no construction should be carried out within a radius of 100 metres from a preserved monument (in this case the Qutub Minar).

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report