New Delhi: A Delhi court has rejected a plea by Okhla AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan seeking discharge and a fair investigation in a 2023 case, observing there is reason to presume he committed the offences related to alleged assault, wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation near Jamia Millia Islamia.In the present case, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal had already taken cognisance of the chargesheet on Feb 13, 2026, and arguments on framing of charges were heard on April 11, 2026, following which Khan had filed the present application on April 18, 2026.According to the prosecution led by prosecutor Lalit Pingolia, the complainant was installing CCTV cameras for Delhi Police at Gate No. 10 of Jamia Millia Islamia on Oct 1, 2023, when Khan allegedly confronted him over the work, abused Delhi Police, and assaulted the complainant after stopping him from leaving the spot.The court also referred to Khan’s interrogation conducted on Jan 15, 2024, at his residence in Jogabai Extension, Jamia Nagar, where he allegedly stated that he saw some boys working on the road, felt they would damage it, and “hit them.”The defence argued that the investigation officer had conducted the probe “in a superficial manner and with the intent to falsely implicate the applicant,” while also raising a plea of alibi. However, the court noted that “no concrete proof” or digital evidence had been submitted to establish the claim. It further observed that although the accused relied on four documents and fifteen photographs relating to a public function on the same day, the material didn’t conclusively establish his presence there at the relevant time.Noting that the said documents don’t show any exact time of Khan’s presence at the alleged event, magistrate Dalal held that , “merely invitation letter of function to start at 5pm and actual time of the function are different matter of fact, and same would require proof.”The court also observed, that the venue of the alleged alibi was within 8 km of the incident spot, leaving open the possibility of his involvement with the alleged incident.Thus rejecting the plea for fair investigation, the court held that “the prayer to direct fair investigation is not warranted at this stage,” noting that the allegations were supported by the victim’s testimony, medical evidence and witness statements. It concluded that “prima facie allegations are made out to frame charges under Section 323/341/506.”
