Haryana Congress MLA made accused in another Nuh violence case; again remanded to two days police custody

Congress Ferozepur Jhirka MLA Mamman Khan remanded to two days police custody in connection with another Nuh violence case. Mobile internet, bulk SMS services suspended as precaution. Prohibitory orders in force

Congress Ferozepur Jhirka MLA Mamman Khan was again remanded to two days police custody on Sunday (September 17) after the Nuh Police arrested him in yet another case of violence during the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Jalabhishek Yatra on July 31. He was earlier arrested on September 14 and remanded to two days police custody the next day.

Mobile internet and bulk SMS services in Nuh were suspended from 6 p.m. on September 17 to midnight on September 19 as a precautionary measure. Prohibitory orders preventing gathering of five or more persons are already in force in the district.

Produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, Jogender Singh, on completion of his police remand in the earlier case (FIR No. 149 at Nagina Police Station), Mr. Khan was remanded to police custody till September 19 in another case of violence registered on August 1 in connection with arson and vandalism inside an oil mill owned by Bharatiya Janata Party’s Nuh general-secretary Shiv Kumar.

Seeking five days police remand in the case registered as FIR No. 137 at Nagina Police Station, the Nuh Police told the court that the accused was “educated” and “clever” and had replied to most of the questions during the detailed interrogation saying that he did not know or remember anything. The police said the phone of the accused was formatted and he needed to be interrogated further to collect evidence in the case and identity the rioters by showing him the closed-circuit television footage and photos.

Defence counsel Tahir Hussain Ruparya opposed the police custody saying the accused was implicated and not present at the spot during the riots. Mr. Ruparya said the two mobile phones of the accused were already seized and no more recoveries were to be made from him. He said the accused was not required to be taken to any place for investigation since the police had not revealed so in its remand application and therefore there was no ground, cogent and convincing, for the police remand.

The court, however, granted the remand “in view of the grounds mentioned in the application” saying that proper and fair investigation was the fundamental right of both: the accused and the complainant.

The court said the accused had the right to meet an advocate of his choice during the interrogation under Section 41D of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed the Investigating Officer to comply with the legal provision.