New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Friday questioned Delhi police what his violations were carried out by certain Indian citizens when they accommodated foreigners, who attended the Church of Tabligh Jamaat last year, during the national locking, said the government notice did not impose the bar to people who lived in Certain places.
Justice Mukta Gupta, who heard a number of petitions to canceled a registered shot in the host, observed that the Jamaat participants were looking for protection before locking was applied after the pandemic and no accusations they violated the command.
“Suddenly when locking is worn, where does someone leave after that? Is the violation committed? …
Is there a bar in Madhya Pradesh residents to live in Delhi in the mosque, temples or Gurudwara? They can stay wherever they want.
Is there a notification that everyone will throw away anyone who lives (with them)? “The judge asked.
“I have issued the point …
you will tell me where a violation when there are no questions about changing the place at that time.
I can understand them out, that they violate the notification (locking).
When locking is put in, there is no bar on whom Even what was located, “The court stated that it gave Delhi’s police time to submit his response to the request.
Advice for the prosecution sought for time to submit a detailed status report in terms of the previous direction which was forwarded by the court and stated that at the relevant time, there was a bar in all types of religious churches.
The advice that arises for the applicants handed over that since the Jamaat participants began to be in a place in question before locking and no one was tested positive for Covid, there were no cases carried out on his client.
While some requests for pine dismissal are by individuals who have provided protection to foreigners who have attended the event and cannot travel because of the next lock because of the outbreak of Covid-19, the other by people such as members of the Managing Committee or Caregiver from Various mosques that have been accused of providing housing facilities to foreign nationals at the mosque under the jurisdiction of the Expensive Chandni Police Station.
FIRS was registered for alleged commission violations based on section 188 (disobedience to be properly ordered announced by civil servants), section 269 (negligent act tends to spread infection) and other violations under the KUHAP.
In their request, submitted through Advocates Ashima Mandla and Mandakini Singh, Feroz and Rizwan, who have each provided accommodation to four Tabligh women, have argued that the shelter was given to them because they had no place to go.
Feroz, Rizwan and other applicants also argue that there is no documentation on the note on the firh and fees to show that they have been infected by Covid-19 and therefore, they cannot be accused of spreading disease under the epidemic.
The disease law, 1897.
In his petition, Rizwan has accused that the instant case is a classic example of a case where unfounded accusations have been decorated and exaggerated.
Previously, the court had asked Delhi police to submit a status report that showed the role of each accused and and the duration of their stay and whether housing facilities were given after or before the residents’ order was issued by the authorities in Covid’s view.
Does housing must be present as a violation?: Ham
