New Delhi [India], April 7 : The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a response from the Delhi police in a plea filed by student activist and Delhi riots accused Devangana Kalita. She sought clarification of the Court's December 2024 order on the preservation of case records related to the investigation conducted by Jafrabad Police Station.
Delhi Police opposed the plea.
The High Court said that the prosecution should show its "fairness" by declaring that it will preserve the entire records of case diaries instead of opposing Kalita's plea.
Justice Ravindra Dudeja issued a notice on the application and listed the matter for further consideration on July 7.
Kalita, accused in a case related to the anti-CAA protest and road blockade at the Jafrabad metro station on February 22 and 23, 2020, has alleged tampering and antedating of statements recorded by the Delhi police.
Her application also challenges the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on November 6, 2024, which refused to look into her allegations.
Earlier, in December 2024, the Delhi High Court directed the trial court to preserve the case diaries. Kalita, in her plea, is also seeking preservation and reconstruction of the case diary.
Kalita is now seeking clarification as to whether this would mean preservation of the entire case records or only the case records pertaining to the Jafrabad incident.
Her counsel, Advocate Adit Pujari, representing Kalita, argued before the bench that if the preservation is only limited to the case diary pertaining to Jafrabad, "it would be an exercise in futility." He submitted that the preservation of records would require including the entire case record.
At this point, Justice Dudeja remarked, "...it is already visible from the records that there is prima facie antedating...Why do you have any objection? Show your fairness and say you'll preserve the entire records."
On the other hand, SPP Anuj Handa submitted that he has never objected to the preservation of records; what he says is to preserve records of all cases.
For the past one and a half years, the petitioner has been silent. When the trial court directed that either you argue or we'll pass orders on merits, she raised this issue, SPP added.