SC takes up Sajjan Kumar’s plea against conviction, issues notice to CBI
1984 ANTI-SIKH RIOTS ACCUSED SAJJAN KUMAR PRODUCED IN KARKARDOOMA COURT, IN DELHI ON WEDNESDAY. KARKARDOOMA COURT GRANTS BAIL TO SAJJAN KUMAR IN 1984 ANTI-SIKH RIOTS CASE..EXPRESS PHOTO BY -- PRAVEEN KHANNA (10-03-2010).DELHI. *** Local Caption *** 1984 ANTI-SIKH RIOTS ACCUSED SAJJAN KUMAR PRODUCED IN KARKARDOOMA COURT, IN DELHI ON WEDNESDAY. KARKARDOOMA COURT GRANTS BAIL TO SAJJAN KUMAR IN 1984 ANTI-SIKH RIOTS CASE..EXPRESS PHOTO BY -- PRAVEEN KHANNA (10-03-2010).DELHI.
New Delhi:The Supreme Court Monday examined the plea of former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar challenging a Delhi High Court order sentencing him to life term in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The apex court also issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Kumar’s plea against the order as well as his bail plea and sought the agency’s reply within six weeks.
Kumar had surrendered before Karkardooma court on December 31 after the apex court had declined his plea to extend the time by a month. The 73-year-old was convicted and sentenced to life term for the “remainder of his natural life” after he was found guilty in a case pertaining to the killing of five Sikhs in southwest Delhi’s Raj Nagar on November 1-2, 1984, and the burning down of a gurdwara in Raj Nagar Part-II. Kumar surrendered in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Aditi Garg, who directed that he be lodged at Mandoli Jail, “as per rules”.
MM Garg also rejected Kumar’s petition to be lodged in the high-security Tihar Jail, but allowed his plea to let him be taken to the prison in a separate vehicle. “It is stated by the counsel for the convict that he was acquitted by the trial court order, vide 30.4.2013. The said order was reversed by the Delhi HC, vide order dated 17.12.2018… In view of the above, the convict is taken into custody and is sent to jail as per rules. Since there is security threat to the convict, he be provided separate van for commuting from jail to court and court to jail,” the court had said.