In February, a week after two Muslim men were allegedly abducted by cow vigilantes and charred to death in Haryana’s Bhiwani, Congress legislator Mamman Khan had criticised the state government.
Speaking in the Haryana assembly, Khan demanded action against cow vigilantes like Monu Manesar, who leads the Bajrang Dal’s cow vigilante wing in Haryana. Manesar is a key suspect in the killing of the two Muslim men, Junaid and Nasir. The Bajrang Dal is the youth wing of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, an affiliate of Sangh Parivar.
“It is the state government and police that have provided sophisticated weapons to such ‘gau rakshaks’,” Khan, a three-time MLA who represents Firozpur Jhirka constituency, had said in the assembly. “Have they been recruited to kill Muslims? Why doesn’t the government put any curbs on them?”
Seven months later, Khan is in jail on charges of inciting communal violence in Nuh.
On July 31, a yatra organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad came under attack in Nuh town. Violence spread to other parts of the district, too, including Badkali Chowk on the Nuh-Alwar highway.
The special investigation team of the Haryana Police probing the Nuh violence on September 15 arrested Khan near Kota in Rajasthan.
In the remand application seeking Khan’s custody, the Haryana police said the violence was in response to a video that had circulated online, in which Manesar had announced that he would participate in the yatra.
The police, however, claimed the violence was not spontaneous – Khan had planned it. “The accused created a plan to teach him [Monu Manesar] a lesson and that is why they indulged in violence,” alleges the police application.
But Khan’s lawyers point out that the police itself conceded in its latest application in court on September 19 that no evidence was found against Khan during his interrogation.
To indict Khan, the police cited the disclosure statement of Tofik Mohammad, a ticket checker with the Haryana Roadways, accused of participating in the violence. The police alleged that Khan was in contact with Mohammad for three days leading up to the violence.
Khan’s lawyers, however, have refuted this claim saying that he never called Mohammad. Further, Tahir Hussain Ruparya, a member of Khan’s legal team, pointed out that disclosure statements have little evidentiary value. “These statements are prepared after the accused are made to sign on blank papers under duress,” he said.
In fact, while in police custody, Khan too refused to sign a disclosure statement. “The disclosure statement of the accused was written and he refused to mark his signature on it… this shows that the accused has not provided the complete and proper information about the conspiracy,” the police had told the court while seeking an extension of his custody.
The court on September 17 extended Khan’s police remand by two days and on September 19, he was sent to judicial custody, in which a suspect is in the custody of a magistrate while in jail for 14 days.
Congress leaders and Khan’s lawyers say his arrest is politically motivated. “The arrest of Monu Manesar could hurt the BJP electorally,” said Ramzan Chaudhary, Khan’s lawyer. “So, to compensate for that, they have targeted Khan.” Manesar was arrested by the Rajasthan police on September 12 in connection with the murder of Junaid and Nasir.
At a press conference on Tuesday, Congress MLA Chaudhary Aftab Ahmed said Khan was “falsely being implicated in cases”. According to Ahmed, the Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled Haryana government was trying to score electoral and political points by targeting Khan. “They have been exposed,” he told Scroll.
“Either they are ignorant or they deliberately let the situation go this way to polarise the people for electoral gains,” he added.
The first case against Khan
The first information report based on which Khan was arrested was registered on August 1, a day after the violence, on the complaint of Madan, a Hindu businessman from Nagina, who alleged that a Muslim mob had destroyed his grocery shop located at Badkali Chowk. The FIR invokes charges of rioting, provocations for rioting, loot, arson, criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation.
The police had sought Khan’s custody alleging that he had incited people through social media and thus his role needs investigation. “We have to recover the provocative posts Mamman Khan made on social media using his mobile phone to incite riots,” the remand application said, adding that the police wants to ask him about his supporters who have been accused of violence, and that data on his mobile phone has to be checked.
The application also states that the police seeks to investigate how many phones, SIM cards, Instagram IDs, Facebook IDs, Youtube accounts and WhatsApp groups were used to “abet” the riots and uncover the “conspiracy” behind the violence.
But Khan’s lawyer Ramzan Chaudhary said that if Khan had used social media to incite violence, then the police should have invoked laws from the Information Technology Act against him.
The bus checker and the MLA
The police had cited the disclosure statement of Mohammad, the bus checker with the Haryana Roadways at the Nuh depot. Mohammad, a resident of Marora village in Nuh, is one of the accused in the case.
He was granted bail by a court in Nuh on September 6. The bail order stated that Mohammad was on duty on the day of violence and was on duty on a bus. “When it came to their knowledge that riots and arson had occurred, they had diverted their route via Badkali to Ferozepur Jhirka under instruction of Inspector Hakam Ali,” the order notes, adding that his presence in Firozpur Jhirka when the violence unfolded at Badkali Chowk is corroborated by CCTV footage. Badkali Chowk and Firozpur Jhirka are 15 kilometres apart.
The government, however, alleged that Khan and Mohammad were in contact before the violence broke out, according to the Hindustan Times. Deepak Sabherwal, additional advocate general of the Haryana government, claimed the investigation found that Khan and Mohammad made calls to each other between July 29 and July 3, said the report.
According to the mobile tower location, the Khan was within a 1.5 km radius where the violence occurred between July 29 and July 30. This contradicts Khan’s claims that he was not close to the scene of the violence, says the report.
But advocate Ramzan Chaudhary, who is part of Khan’s legal team, said the legislator was at his home in Gurgaon with his family on July 31. “He was at his home in Gurgaon and then he visited his father at a private hospital in Gurgaon,” said a relative. “In the evening he went to Haryana Bhawan in Delhi and stayed there for the night. There is CCTV footage and bills.”
Khan is a resident of Bhadas, a village located two km from Badkali Chowk.
However, they said that Khan had been in his constituency on June 29 and June 30 and interacted with the public. “During all these days he received a number of calls from people,” said advocate Chaudhary. “After all, he is a public representative.”
During arguments over Mohammad’s bail application, the public prosecutor alleged that the bus checker had made calls to Khan and disseminated messages – which he later deleted – through WhatsApp to incite violence.
The public prosecutor also claimed that the location of Mohammad’s mobile phone was at Badkali Chowk around 2 pm. However, the complainant in the case had said his shop was attacked by the mob at around 5 pm that day. During that time, Mohammad was in Firozpur Jhirka, as per the CCTV footage cited in his bail application.
Three more cases follow
On Sunday, the Nagina police named Khan in three more FIRs in connection with the violence at Badkali Chowk. The police have invoked charges similar to the first FIR, accusing Khan of conspiring to foment riots.
Scroll contacted Inspector Jagbir, the Station House Officer of Nagina Police Station, Satish Kumar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Firozpur Jhirka who is heading the special investigation team and Krishan Kumar, Public Relations Officer, Superintendent of Police, Nuh.
All the three refused to divulge information related to the cases in which Khan is being investigated. “These things are not told to the media,” said Deputy Superintendent of Police Kumar.
‘Crush Muslim leadership’
As per 2011 Census the Muslims constitute nearly 80% of the population of Nuh district. Community leaders say the crackdown on Khan is the Manohar Lal Khattar-led government’s way of crushing Muslim leadership in the district.
Since the violence broke out, the police have raided villages and towns across Nuh and arrested hundreds of Muslim youngsters in connection with riot cases. “Most of those who were arrested had no role in the violence and a lot of them have been discharged,” said Chaudhary Mohammad Ilyas, a Congress legislator representing Haryana’s Punhana constituency. Ilyas said the Khan’s arrest has “revived the fear” among the people.
Umar Padla, a supporter of Khan from Firozpur Jhirka town, alleged Khan’s arrest was due to pressure from the Bajrang Dal that had been demanding his arrest since the violence.
According to Padla, the media used Khan’s remarks against cow vigilantes to demonise him, making him an easy target for the Bajrang Dal and the police.
Khan, in his speech in the Haryana Assembly in February demanding action against cow vigilantes, had said, “When people intervene and attempt to stop them, police would rather register false cases against us than take any action against these goons.”
