Statements in DJ Halli riot case fabricated: Advocates

Hameed Ashraf | NT

Bengaluru: Expressing dissatisfaction over the probe carried out by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the DJ Halli and KG Halli riots case, advocates representing the undertrials have claimed that they have found fundamental variations in statements recorded by the police and those mentioned in the NIA chargesheet.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, Mohammed Tahir, an advocate representing Access Law firm in Bengaluru, alleged that versions of the statements recorded by the Karnataka police and the NIA sleuths in connection with the incident contradict at various levels.

"One of the glaring fabrications can be found in the investigation reports of the burning of one Innova car (Crime no 229/2020) bearing registration number KA 04 MP 5959. The NIA has alleged the involvement of six accused, who are still in jail, whereas the state police that probed the same incident (Crime no 235/2020) and filed a chargesheet in November 2020, named four persons, whom the NIA has neither mentioned as accused in their report nor has examined them," he claimed.

The advocate further said that NIA did not contest the earlier investigation done by the Bengaluru CCB, but continued the probe. Despite that, the NIA has concealed 161 statements recorded by the state police, he alleged.

Tahir said that there still are 37 accused in jail facing stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) charges filed against them.

"The riot on 11 August 2020 was widely covered by the media and there are more than five hours of video clips available as mentioned in the chargesheet. However, not even a single image is available that shows the 37 accused engaging in any illegal act. Moreover, several of them were helping the police in controlling the situation," he claimed. 

Late entry of eyewitness in Praveen Nettaru murder case raises eyebrows

On July 26, 2022, BJP youth member, Praveen Nettaru was hacked to death in Sullia taluk of Dakshina Kannada district.

The incident largely sparked debate and speculation whether it was a planned execution. Advocate Tahir claimed that there was not a single eyewitness of the incident when the state police probed the case for the first twenty days.

However, after the case was handed over to the NIA, these eyewitnesses were mentioned in their chargesheet, he said.

"We had requested a list of statements recorded by the NIA officials, but were told that they had already submitted them. When we got the list, we found there was a difference in the number of pages mentioned in both," he claimed.