Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Supreme Court Hears Bail Pleas Of Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman & Md Saleem

In the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Supreme Court today (November 3) heard the arguments in the petitions filed by Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman and Mohd Saleem Khan who are booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria posted the matter for further hearing on November 6. On Friday, the bench completed hearing the arguments of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima.The petitions have been filed against the Delhi High Court's judgment delivered on September 2, dismissing their bail applications. A division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur had pronounced the judgment in FIR 59 of 2020, registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell.Today's hearingAt the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Umar Khalid's lawyer, made a brief submission to say that in 116 riot-related cases which were tried, acquittals happened in 97. He added that in many cases, the trial courts had made observations regarding the fabrication of evidence. Justice Kumar asked how this was relevant to the present bail hearing. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Delhi police, said that it was an irrelevant argument being made to prejudice the mind of the Court. Sibal said that he was only stating a fact which will point towards the nature of the investigation. Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, for Shifa Ur Rehman, started by drawing a parallel with the 'Trial of the Chicago 7' which took place in the United States against the anti-Vietnam war protesters. He said that his client was the President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (AAJMI). Khurshid argued that there was no allegation of any violence or provocative speech being made by Rehman. There is a statement by a protected witness that a meeting on February 22 was attended by AAJMI office bearers, but there was no specific reference to the petitioner or any statement allegedly made by him. "I may be present but have I said anything or contributed anything? It's very critical at this point," Khurshid said.Khurshid also highlighted that there is no other case against Rehman, and that on the two occasions he was granted interim bail, he duly surrendered without any violation. He submitted: "Essentially, nobody can dispute that if there is a law that you disagree with, you have a right to protest. Peacefully, of course but you have a right to protest. But where is that line to be drawn? its very critical, that if somebody is protesting peacefully and is provoked and is then trapped into a horrendous crime. What I am submitting on behalf of Shifa Ur Rehman, who is the head of the AAJMI, his name may appear anywhere but nobody anywhere said he indulged in violence or did something that is patently unlawful."Khurshid cited that there was an incident in Jamia in December 2019 before the riots took place in February 2020. In this incident, the police marched into the university and ransacked without any permission but even then the petitioner was not involved any act of violence. He also made a reference to the calls to other co-accused persons and clarified that these calls were made when there was unrest in Jamia. He also denied any allegation of delaying the trial. Shifa has spent 5 years, 6 months in incarceration.Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, for Meeran Haider, also relied on the order granting bail to co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, and claimed parity, saying the allegations were similar. He highlighted that Haider has no criminal antecedents and was aged only 34 years, who was pursuing Ph.D even while in prison. About 960 witnesses and over 1214 documents have been cited by the prosecution and hence the trial will inevitably take time. He pointed out that till September 2024, the Delhi Police kept on filing supplementary chargesheets, and hence, the onus was on them to explain the delay in the trial.Agarwal also asked if the Court should go into merit scrutiny at this stage when petitioner has suffered long period of incarceration. He questioned if the prosecution can allege delay of trial when it itself continues to file supplementary chargesheet and is yet to conclude investigation. "If I was here in 2019, 2020 or 2021, I could have said, its too premature and let them get sometime but that after 5 and a half years, any length of time for 150 witnesses is a length of time one day too many.""Last chargesheet is filed as on June 2023 and even in that chargesheet it is said that my investigation is still going on. When it comes to the next progress of trial, which will be the issue of determination whether charges will be framed or not, it presupposes that your investigation is complete. It can't be a scenario where accused persons are called upon to point out their lacunae in case but your investigation is continuing so that it keeps on going. On 17 June, this...

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Supreme Court Hears Bail Pleas Of Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman & Md Saleem

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Supreme Court Hears Bail Pleas Of Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman & Md Saleem

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers