Khurshid: where the line is to be drawn, we have to be careful. The civil disobedience means defiance of law.

J Kumar: I was reading [baisakhi protest which led to General Dyer shooting point blank]

Khurshid: I have written something on conspiracy theory.

concludes.

Sr Adv Siddharth Agarwal for Meeran Haider: the tenor of my submission, that in order to look at merits, I have placed submissions and brief reply. I will begin by taking to that. i will confine to two things- is the delay attributable to anyone of us and parity is the other which will indicate whether what the State is submitting should be gone into.

there are conspiratorial meeting- allegation was I have attended. Dec 2019 Jangpura and 13 Dec, Jamia attributable to Jamia- the petitioner was not in delhi due to the death of his mother. Please see the counter and the photograph. I am not even there.

Today, I ask myself what did the State say in answer? Nothing. I have spent 6 years for being involved in two meetings when my case is that I was not even in the city because my mother had passed away.

For 6 years, we are in custody and awaiting the onset of trial is an admitting position. The one thing available to the court would be how the HC has analysed this. Please come to the impugned judgment- However, the grant of bail on the sole ground of long incarceration and delay in trial is not a universally applicable rule in all the cases. The discretion to grant or deny bail vests with the Constitutional Court, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each of the case. The Supreme Court in Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra), also noted that “in the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail”. Further, the interest and safety of the society at large, apart from the victims and their families, is also a factor to be taken into consideration by the Courts while adjudicating bail applications.

In such a background, the pace of the trial will progress naturally. A hurried trial would also be detrimental to the rights of both the Appellants and the State. The parties have informed this Court that the trial is currently at the stage of hearing arguments on the framing of charges, thus, it indicates that the case is progressing- the case of rhe State was not that the five or six people are responsible for delay, the case was the trial is so big and it will take time. 2 September is the date of judgment. It is nobody's case that the last three months delay is attributable to the accused.

6 March 2020 is when FIR is registered. Multiple chargesheet came to be filed, last is June 2023. Period of 3 years. September 2023 was when arguments on charge began. 18 Sep, 2023, petitioners submitted that it should be deferred because prosecution must first take a stand whether investigation is complete or not. There is a sequential process and investigation must be completed for the court to apply mind. When learned judge asked them, they answered in affirmative only in September 2024. This delay they attribute to the petitioner. If I am insisting on due process, I am doing nothing wrong and that delay cant be at my door.

Assume I did, but when did it commence? 1 Oct 2024. So let us now exclude this one year. September 2023-2024 is attributable to them.