False cases against us falling flat in court: AAP
NEW DELHI: The Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government had maintained that Bjp-controlled Delhi Police has failed to prove a single case in courts in against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and MLAS in the last 42 months.
AAP said that in its latest ‘fake’ chargesheet based on the false FIR in the alleged assault on Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash, even before a trial could begin, the city court has dropped charges under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which was one of several imaginary sections.
The party said that since its inception on February 15, 2015, Delhi Police has registered 22 FIRS against the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government under various sections. But the city’s fast-track courts acquitted in 19 of the 22 cases.
“The Modi government’s Delhi Police filed so many bogus cases against Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and MLAS during the last three and a half years – all of which miserably fell flat in courts during trials,” said an AAP government’s spokesperson.
On Tuesday, the Patiala House Court again summoned Kejriwal, Sisodia and 11 other AAP MLAS in the case of the alleged assault on the Chief Secretary.
However, before trial begins, the city court has dropped charges under the section 504 IPC, which deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
It is pertinent to mention here that the courts of Additional Sessions Judge Arvind Kumar and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal were set up at Patiala House Court in the first week of March, following an order by the Supreme Court in February. Among the AAP leaders who got relief in these 19 cases are Kejriwal, Sisodia, Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot and former minister Asim Ahmed Khan.
Two cases resulted in the conviction of Bijwasan MLA Devinder Sehrawat, who was convicted under the Defacement Act and “admonished” by the court as punishment. Moreover, Tughlakabad MLA Sahi Ram was convicted of voluntarily causing hurt and wrongful restraint of his neighbour’s son.