“Dear PM, the Special Cell is a group of licensed marauders,” Irshad Ali wrote to the prime minister when he was lodged in Tihar Jail. Ali’s emotional letter to the PM was a narrative of the harrowing experience he underwent at the hands of the special cell of Delhi police despite having worked as an informer for it.

He was arrested in 2006, charged under the Explosive Substance Act and Arms Act, and remained in jail till 2011 when a court found him innocent and he was released. Despite the ordeal, some could argue that Ali was lucky — Maqbool Shah and Mohammad Amir Khan, accused in separate cases, spent more than a decade of their youth in jails. Both of them had also been wrongly held without sufficient evidence. Once outside, with little to no vocational training, the best of their working years gone and saddled with the stigma of having been jailbirds (terrorists, according to the charges), they have floundered in picking up the bits of their lives outside.

There are 16 such cases where people, deemed innocent by the court, were arrested by the Delhi police’s elite special cell on flimsy evidence.
A report, titled “Framed, Damned, Acquitted – Dossiers of a ‘Very’ Special Cell”, brought out by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (JTSA) studied the 16 cases, of which 11 accused are from Kashmir. Manisha Sethi, president of the JTSA told Governance Now, “The report is not their side of story but looks at the courts’ judgment and RTI details. It is tragic and sad that these people lost so much in their lives despite being innocent.”

“Some cases like that of young Md Amir Khan, which was a practically an open and shut case, where the prosecution had virtually no leg to stand on, got drawn out for 14 painful and long years,” the report noted. His case was reported in Governance Now (March 1-15 issue).

According to the report, between 1992 and 2012 a large number of those arrested were acquitted of all charges by the courts. “The evidence that the report presents shows clearly that the acquittals were not simply for want of evidence. What judgment after judgment comments on is the manner in which the so-called evidence provided by the police and the prosecution was tampered with and fabricated, how story after story as presented by the prosecution was unreliable, incredulous, and appeared as concocted,” said the 200-page report.

“Not a single officer in any of the operations described here has suffered criminal proceedings for the framing of innocents,” the report said. It also reported that the national human rights commission indicted ACP Sanjeev Yadav – but he continues to head probes on the Israeli diplomat in Delhi. Sethi says, “The special cell enjoys complete immunity in the name of securing nation. We don’t need any such kinds of forces which are a menace to society. There should be proper compensation and rehabilitation of 16 people immediately.”

A few of cases studied by JTSA
Case no 1: State Versus Tanveer Ahmad, Shakil Ahmad, Ishtiaq Akhtar Dar, Md. Akhtar Dar, Md. Yusuf Lone, Abdul Rauf and Ghulam Md. (1992)
Charges under sections: Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act and others
Years Spent in Jail: 10 years
Court’s remark: The prosecution was unable to explain how the defence witnesses could have filed applications and writs against the arrests in advance if the arrests were actually in fact made on 29th April 1992.

Case no 2: State versus Farooq Ahmed Khan, etc. (1996)
Charges under sections: Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act; Section 25 of the Arms Act
Years spent in jail: 4 years
Court’s remark: “At the outset, it may be mentioned here that the prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. . . . No reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the testimony of any eyewitness who had witnessed the accused persons committing the offence”. Four acquitted out of 16 in this case. The Court while delivering the verdict on the culpability of Syed Maqbool Shah, who spent 14 years of jail, yet again lamented the failure of the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt his participation in the blast in any manner whatsoever.

Case no 3: State versus Md. Amir Khan. (1997)
Charges under sections: 5, 7 of the Explosive Substances Act; 150 of the Railway Act and others
Years spent in jail: 14 years
Court’s remark: “The prosecution has miserable failed to adduce any evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the charges framed much less prove them.”

Case 4: State versus Khongbantbum Brojen Singh & Anr (2002)
Charges under sections: 3/5/20/21/22 of POTA 12PP Act 10/13 UA (P) Act; 25 of the Arms Act and others
Years spent in Jail: 7 years
Court’s remark: “Brojen had been suspected as a terrorist by State authorities and he had already incurred wrath of authorities in getting their conviction in the contempt of court, the police got him targeted to become a victim of this crime.” The Court acquitted Brojen of all charges.

Case 5: State versus Hamid Hussain, Md. Shariq, Md. Iftekhar Ahsan Malik, Maulana Dilawar Khan, Masood Ahmed, Haroon Rashid (2004)
Charges under sections: 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, 18/19/20/23 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, & 379/411 IPC
Years spent in Jail: 6 years
Court’s remark: There is not even a mole of evidence against the accused for their engagement in any act of waging war against government.

Case 6: State versus Ayaz Ahmed Shah (2004)
Charges under sections: Section 121/121-A/122/123/120-B IPC read with 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act
Years spent in Jail: 5 years
Court’s remark: “It appears that the officials of Special Cell were not vigilant enough in procuring the required sanction and treated the present case as an ordinary case under Arms Act and that has resulted in all the lapses which are apparent on record.

Case 7: State versus Saqib Rehman, Bashir Ahmed Shah, Nazir Ahmed Sofi, Hazi Gulam Moinuddin Dar, Abdul Majid Bhat, Abdul Qayoom Khan and Birender Kumar Singh (2005)
Charges under sections: 307/353/186/489(c)/482/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act & 3/5 of the Explosives Act
Years spent in Jail: 6 years
Court’s remark: “There cannot be any more serious or grave crime than a police officer framing an innocent citizen in a false criminal case. Such tendency in the police officers should not be viewed or dealt with lightly but needs to be curbed with a stern hand.”

Case 8: State versus Khurshid Ahmad Bhatt & (2005)
Charges under sections: 121/121-A/122/ 123/ 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act
Years spent in Jail: 6 years
Court’s remark: The prosecution could produce no evidence to demonstrate that Khurshid had conspired with Wani to wage war against the nation.

Case 9: State versus Maurif Qamar and Md. Irshad Ali (2006)
Charges under sections: 121/ 121A /122/ 123/ 120 B of IPC; 4/5 of the Explosive
Substance Act & Section 25 of the Arms Act
Years spent in Jail: 5 years
Court’s remark: There was not a single public witness produced by the prosecution to prop up its case.