Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail Pleas : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Delhi Riots UAPA Case
Raju: reading the case "rejection of bail, cancellation of bail is another. It is easier to reject the bail than the cancellation as [latter] it involves review of the decision made and only in supervening conditions it can be done".
Similar is the judgment in Daulat Ram-cogent reasons are necessary for cancellation of bail.
J Kumar: why are you putting this proposition?
Raju: the SC did not cancel the bail, they are seeking parity. They say HC granted bail but SC did not cancel
J Kumar: parity is different from cancellation. on proposition, you say that it should not be treated as precedent, to an extent, you may be correct but on facts, same FIR etc
Raju: referring to the judgment of Asif Iqbal Tanha-
Raju: If the accusation is prima facie true, you can't get bail. To get over the embargo, the Delhi HC said it will not apply-SC said this interpretation is bad. Mylords have said, that cancellation of bail jurisdiction is different that is why their bails were not cancelled.
Two judgments which say that hearing bail application and hearing cancellation of bail are two different jurisdiction- Sanjay Gandhi case referred.
Raju: refers to another judgment-"before concluding, we would like to observe that by directing the order which was passed by DK Sharma shall not be treated as precedent..." when mylords say it should not be treated as precedent, it means it is not sustainable in law.
J Kumar: it relates to position of law
Raju: they were granted bail in terms of position of law. Delhi HC says that rigors to Section 43D(5) [UAPA] shall not apply to the accused. Interpretation goes to the very root of the matter.
Raju:
J Kumar: please read another para that "The applicant is a co-accused. If the co-accused is entitled to a plea on parity, that is for him to make and the Court to consider. We want to make it clear at a cost of repetition that the purpose of the interim order dated 18.06.2021 was that the expounded legal position regarding statutory interpretations in a bail matter should not be utilized in proceedings either of co-accused or any other person or any other matter"- that means on facts it can
Raju: but not on law
Raju: final order was passed on 2 May, 2023, Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Police's Challenge Against Bail Granted To 3 Student Leaders In Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
Bail orders were not supposed to be used as precedent.
Raju: on parity, they are relying on judgment of co-accused out of which two were ladies- Natasha and Kalita and another is Asif Iqbal Tanha. All three orders of 15.6.21. It is annexed in Sharjeel Imam's petition.
Order granting bail was challenged before this Supreme Court. Initially, this court granted interim order of 18.6.21, that it may not be treated as precedent and may not be relied by other co-accused:
SG: he says, real goal is that delhi should not get milk-this is not the protest! then he says, he challenges the authority of the court- court ko unki nani yaad dilade-narrative is built that intellectuals merely exercised fundamental rights to protest.
We will show accused is responsible for delay. We are ready to complete the trial within 6 months. In some cases, the framing of charges went for 1 year. The mechanism is to delay the trial, do not go into the merits, give me the bail. There was a systematic whatsapp group which we recovered. One photograph shown was recovered from one mobile phone of theirs shows them conspiring, whatsapp shows how property is to be damaged, etc.
It is not a case of communal riots. Since they have not said on merits, we need to show the seriousness. My senior friend would demolish the narrative as to something serious is going on with young people. That's all I wanted to say
ASG SV Raju: one is parity, second is delay and third is merits-they did not touch merits.
Solicitor General Mehta appears.
SG Mehta: some highlights must be shown-suprisingly- there has been a narrative built in social media that the documents running into few weeks but every counsel took 5 to 10 minutes. Our efforts to show that, narrative is different, facts different.
Two keywords- there was a protest and it resulted into communal riots. Mylords have been several communal riots...first of all, I would like the mith to be bursted, this was not spontaneous riot but well-crafted, orcheshtrated, preplanned, choreographed riots. This was not spontaneous, this was an attack against the sovereignity of the nation- I say this with sense of responsibility.
Speech after speech, it was to divide the society. It was mere a mere agitation. Imam- he says, my heartful wish for chakka jam for every city where muslim reside, supposedly intelluctual. He says- our our muslims incapacited that they can't close down delhi?
the riots were not delhi-centric, it did not spread because of security forces. He says Muslims must unite and separate northeast from India.
Bench says it will take up the matter at 2 PM.
The Court is informed that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will begin arguments for the Delhi Police