Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail Pleas : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Delhi Riots UAPA Case
The Supreme Court will hear today the bail petitions of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, etc in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria will hear the matter.The petitioners have completed their arguments last week. The Delhi Police will respond today.Follow this page for live updates....
The Supreme Court will hear today the bail petitions of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, etc in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria will hear the matter.
The petitioners have completed their arguments last week. The Delhi Police will respond today.
Follow this page for live updates.
Hearing to continue day after tomorrow.
Raju: one of counsel ready to address arguments on charge...mere perusal of the ordersheets indicate that counsels have taken many adjournments on charge and they were protracting the proceedings. Inordinate trial is due to the inaction of the accused persons, material shows trial court has not once delayed hearing on charge. Material on record indicate certain accused on bail are trying to delay the hearing on charge...
J Kumar: we will look into it in your counter
Raju: refers to the counter, after Shadab Ahmed concluded on charge, other co-accused persons refuse the hearing on charge...
J Kumar: UAPA, Section 13, 14 and 16 has been involved? what is the minimum punishment? S.13 is minimum 5, and 16 is minimum 5 years and may extent to life
Raju: subsequent bail application was filed due to delay- but delay is attributed to them.
J Kumar: you need not to elaborate on changed cirsumstances when we had repeatedly held
Raju: refers to another judgment
J Kumar: one which refused bail you are relying on Delhi HC judgment and which granted bail, you are not relying
Raju: continues to read the judgment. 11.9.23- Devangana etc objected to commencement of arguments on charges..18.9.23- Khalid Saifi, Meeran Haider- sought deferment on charge due to investigation not complete- arguments on charge can be completed but they wanted to delay. 6.1.24- accused who were granted bail were not permitting for the arguments on charge to continue...4.10.24- Umar Khalid, Sharjeel sought adjournment citing difficulty to commence on charge- trial court recorded distress for commencing as they were not ready, 24 Nov to 7 Feb, 2 Feb- despite directions, accuseds not coming forward to address on charge etc, 8.4.25- adjournment sought by another accused.
Raju: arvind kejriwal judgment referred- benefit of parity can't be given when law wrongly applied.
The principle is this, you have file successive applications, you can't file successive bail applications on same facts when material cirsumstances haven't changed.
On question of parity, 15.6.21 HC granted bail to Asif, Natasha, etc-date of order 18.6.21- interim order of SC, 2.5.23 is the final order.
Before that, 18.10.22, HC rejected his bail application- this is after the judgment. [referring to Umar Khalid]. Withdrawal on 14.2.24- after order of SC on 2.5.23, as Supreme Court was not inclined. No change in material circumstances. No question of parity since parity has been considered. On additional grounds, it does not constitute any material change in circumstances.
refers to a judgment-Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr
Raju: when deciding appeal, you have powers of original court and when original court did not have powers under Section 439, how could HC exercise it.
having held rigorous of section 43D(5) does not apply, and to get over it, it applied Section 439. Those were granted bail on a wrong interpretation of law and it can't be extended. Both interpretation of UAPA and CrPC.
Raju: high court said we will exercise powers under 439 and not 437- this [view] is contrary to mylords judgment
Raju: second mistake High Court committed was once you hold Section 43D(5) is not applicable, you exercise powers under 437 CrPC. HC was faced with a situation, and since 43D(5) will not apply, ordinary law will apply- 437 or 439 CrPC- you can't release if he is prima facie guilty of punishment of death, life etc and this restriction is not in 439.
J Kumar: proviso to 437(1)(i) would give benefit to the first petitioner
Raju: Supreme Court said we don't agree, high court was wrong on law and if 43D(5) was applied, the high court would not have granted bail.-
Raju: if a person is accused under IV and VI, court can't grant bail unless conditions of 43D(5) is fulfilled. When HC said Section 43D(5) does not apply, he did not say on facts but law that since it does not pertain to the defence, it will not apply.
Raju: he say, unless it pertains to defence of India, UAPA is not attracted. That is why, the embargo was not applied. Delhi HC said 43D(5) will not apply, and therefore
J Kumar: they say prima facie it does not apply. Your contention that bail should have not been granted?
Raju: Delhi HC's reasoning is that since does it pertains to defence of India, embargo will not apply.
J Kumar: if its based on same FIR, how do you distinguish?