A Delhi court on Sunday, April 11, pulled up the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch) in a case involving the unfreezing of a bank account linked to the capital's Nizamuddin Markaz after he failed to appear in court with case diaries, stating that "the court has not required his presence just for the sake of fun".
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Arun Kumar Garg, has directed DCP Joy Tirkey to show cause within seven days why he should not be referred to the Delhi High Court for contempt of court.
The DCP had been attempting to get the case adjourned. Since the petitioner, Mursalin Saifi, filed the application on December 19, 2020, the court said it allowed the request subject to ₹10,000 being deposited by the State with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF).
The court stated that the application was pending "due to non-cooperation on the part of the IO (investigating officer) as well as the DCP Crime Branch." The court ordered the Joint Commissioner of Police (JCP), Crime Branch, to file a reply to the application.
The court acknowledged that it was "not oblivious" to the fact that the fine would be withdrawn from the public exchequer. It directed the Special Commissioner of Police (SCP), Crime Branch, to launch an investigation into the matter to fix responsibility on imposition of cost "from the salary of the person responsible".
Last year in March, during an investigation into the Tablighi Jamaat, whose members had tested positive for COVID-19, the Crime Branch visited the Markaz and gathered numerous documents related to the Madrasa Kashiful Uloom Islamia Arabia (Educational Institution).
Advocate Fahim Khan filed an application in the court, requesting it to direct the police to provide them with the documents and unfreeze the bank account for payment of electricity, gas, and other expenses of the Hamdard Dawakhana Branch.
CMM Garg stated that Tirkey "has failed to indicate any specific offence". The DCP had informed the court that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is still looking into some of the cases.
The court questioned the DCP whether the bank account was frozen on the directions of ED or Crime Branch. The DCP informed the court that it was done at IO's behest. The CMM then instructed him to tell the court of the offence for which the bank account had been frozen.
The DCP stated that "he can't disclose the same in open court, and he will file a proper reply in a sealed cover". When the court called for case diaries, the DCP said they are with the IO.
The court said, "The court is unable to comprehend the aforesaid submissions of DCP in as much as the court has not required his presence in the court just for the sake of fun but to seek better assistance from him in the adjudication of the present application since the IO failed to assist the Court by answering the questions put forth by the court on 11.02.2021," The Indian Express reported.
The court observed that the response filed by DCP on Friday, February 11, was absolutely vague and that he did not "respond to the queries by way of written reply in a sealed cover". It also stated that the DCP was required to appear with the case diary or ensure the presence of IO in court, "especially when he has filed a sketchy reply to the application."