Days after BJP MP and Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) president Tejasvi Surya was asked to join the investigation in connection with the attack on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence last month, senior police officers said there was no video evidence so far showing Mr. Surya breaking barricades or indulging in vandalism.
The officers, however, said Mr. Surya has been served a notice to join the probe and he will come to Delhi and report at the Civil Lines police station in a couple of days. “We have informed him (Surya) that his presence is required in the ongoing probe and he has said that he will cooperate…,” a senior officer said.
The officer added that multiple CCTV footage of the violence analysed so far do not directly show Mr. Surya breaking the boom barriers installed outside the CM’s house or throwing ink on the walls of the premises. “He [Surya] has been asked to join the probe as he was seen being present at the protest… we will record his statements,” the officer added.
No arrest
The notice was served under CrPC section 41A, which says a police officer may not arrest a person accused of an offence punishable up to seven years till he or she continues to join the probe. Arrest can take place if the person fails to appear before the police, on the basis of the IO’s opinion.
On March 30, protesters, led by Mr. Surya, vandalised the CM’s residence and clashed with the Delhi police while agitating against the Mr. Kejriwal’s comments at the Delhi Assembly on the movie Kashmir Files.
An FIR was filed in the case against unknown persons, following which the police identified the accused after scanning CCTV cameras installed outside the CM’s residence. Eight persons belonging to the BJYM were held in connection with the incident. All of them were later granted bail by the Delhi High Court.
Recently, the High Court had pulled up the Delhi police for providing inadequate “bandobast” outside the CM’s residence and for “failing to prevent the accused from reaching the gate of the CM’s house and vandalising it”.
The court had observed: “This kind of an incident happening at the residence of any Constitutional functionary…this is a very disturbing state of affairs”.
