Congress leader Jagdish Tytler has sought a stay on trial proceedings regarding his alleged role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. His legal team argues that proceeding with the trial is premature as they contest murder charges and allege a flawed investigation by the CBI. Tytler claims innocence and cites his health issues in challenging the trial court’s decisions.
New Delhi: Congress leader Jagdish Tytler has appealed to the Delhi High Court, seeking a stay on trial proceedings related to his alleged involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that resulted in the deaths of three people in Pul Bangash, north Delhi. This high-profile case stems from the aftermath of the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, during which widespread anti-Sikh violence erupted across the country.
Tytler’s counsel argued before the court that since the framing of charges is still under review, the trial court should refrain from recording evidence. His legal team asserted that moving forward with prosecution evidence would be premature until the High Court addresses his plea to quash the charges of murder and other serious offences. In response, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, presiding over the case, noted the submission of some additional documents, which were, however, yet to be placed on record. The High Court directed the registry to ensure these documents are recorded and scheduled a further hearing for 2:15 PM.
Read Also: Denied Bail To Ex MP Prajwal Revanna In Rape Cases: Supreme Court
Tytler’s petition, challenging the trial court’s August 30 order on the framing of charges, is slated for hearing in the High Court on November 29. Meanwhile, Tytler filed a new application requesting a stay on trial proceedings, highlighting that his petition raises substantial questions about the CBI’s investigation and prosecution’s motives.
In this ongoing legal battle, senior advocate H S Phoolka, representing the victims, strongly opposed Tytler’s application for a stay, citing the advanced age and fragile health of prosecution witness Lokender Kaur. He pointed out that Kaur, due to various ailments, had already appeared multiple times before the trial court, with another scheduled appearance on Tuesday.
Tytler claims to be a victim of a “witch-hunt” and maintains that the trial court’s decision to frame charges was “perverse, illegal, and lacked application of mind.” His legal team contends that the trial court overlooked established legal principles regarding the framing of charges. They also raised a plea of alibi, arguing that Tytler was not present at the crime scene; however, this plea had previously been rejected by the court.
Asserting that no credible evidence corroborates the allegations, Tytler’s petition describes the trial court’s order as “misconceived” and “mechanical”. Additionally, Tytler’s petition highlights his deteriorating health, stating that at age 80, he suffers from heart disease and diabetes. Citing his age and health, Tytler seeks the quashing of charges imposed by the trial court.
The case itself is deeply significant due to the CBI’s 2023 chargesheet, which alleges Tytler’s direct involvement in inciting violence. The CBI cited a witness who claims Tytler arrived at Gurdwara Pul Bangash in a white Ambassador car on November 1, 1984, and instigated a mob by shouting, “Kill the Sikhs, they have killed our mother.” This instigation, according to the CBI, led to the gurdwara being set ablaze and the murder of three Sikhs — Thakur Singh, Badal Singh, and Gurcharan Singh.
The anti-Sikh riots of 1984 are etched in India’s history as one of the darkest episodes of communal violence, following Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards on October 31, 1984. Although Tytler was granted anticipatory bail by a Sessions Court in August of the previous year, his legal battles persist, with significant implications for the survivors and families affected by the riots.
As this legal saga unfolds, Tytler remains firm in his stance, contending that he is facing trial for a crime allegedly committed more than four decades ago without substantial evidence. The court’s decision on this matter will be crucial in determining how the country addresses justice in historical communal violence cases.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
