[BREAKING] 'Trial Court Cannot Be Lax Once There Is A Bail Order' : Delhi High Court On Issue Of Students Activists' Release In Riots Case

The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that the trial court must consider "with alacrity" the issue of release of student activists who were granted by bail by the High Court in the Delhi riots case.A division bench comprising Justices Sidharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani was considering the urgent applications filed by student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15 in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, challenging the trial court 's action in deferring orders their release.While the bench observed that it cannot consider the issue without the trial court passing an order, it asked the parties to appear before the trial court at 12 noon today itself. The High Court will consider the matter again today afternoon at 3.30 PM to ascertain the developments in the trial court."We expect the trial court to proceed with promptitude and expedition and pronounce on the issues pending determination before it forthwith", the bench observed in the order.In the urgent applications filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the activists contended that the Trial Court's action in deferring orders on their release despite the bail granted by the High Court was violative of their fundamental rights."Once an order of bail has been granted, release cannot be delayed citing administrative reasons. The court deferred the release citing heavy board", Senior Advocate Sidhharth Aggarwal, appearing for the applicants submitted."I can be released and they can go ahead with verification", he added. If there is an issue of verification, the trial court must temporarily release them pending verification, he urged.The bench asked if the trial court is passing an order today, would not the present application become infructuous."At the highest, we can say that the trial court should dispose off the matter expeditiously. Has the trial court taken a view?", Justice Mridul asked."Unfortunately, by not passing an order, the trial court has taken a view", Aggarwal replied. Justice Mridul asked whether it is an issue on which the High Court can take a call as the trial court is yet to pass its order."My difficulty today is that your lordships' order is not being implemented. The Rules say within a day it has to be done.The problem is, by not taking a view, the trial court has denied me of bail which was granted on Jun 15. At 6 PM, the trial court defers the order saying there is no time", Aggarwal urged.Advocate Adit S Pujari, also appearing for the applicants, told the bench that the Delhi Police was "cleverly" delaying the release. "The Delhi Police have cleverly verified 1 surety each for every appellant and said there are mistakes with the 2nd", he said. Pujari said that this happened despite all the sureties being physically present in the court.Pujari also told the bench that as per the orders passed by the High Court, verification process must be completed within 24 hours of grant of bail.Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad told the bench that they are only following the directions in the bail order to verify the addresses of the accused and sureties before their release. He said that the police do not have "magical powers" to verify the permanent addresses of the accused in Jharkhand and Assam in a short time."The least that is expected is that trial court takes a decision with alacrity. The trial court cannot be lax about it once we pass a bail order", Justice Mridul observed.When the SPP spoke about the verification of aadhaar numbers of sureties, Justice Bhambhani asked "Do you follow this procedure in all cases?".The SPP said that there is a direction of the Supreme Court on verification of sureties. He also said that certain discrepancies were noted in the addresses furnished by the accused.Justice Bhambhani observed that the verification cannot be a "two-week process"."Maybe I'm missing something here. But what is this Assam, Jharkhand thing about. These are local sureties, you've had the accused in custody for a year. Chargesheet has been filed", Justice Bhambhani expressed surprise.The SPP replied that there were discrepancies in the address furnished by Tanha. The police need to travel to Jharkhand to verify the addresses. As per rules, police can avail of only train services of Rajdhani express for such travel, the SPP added.Ultimately, the bench said that it cannot monitor the verification process at this stage, as it is "within the domain of the trial court". Therefore, the High Court asked the parties to join the trial court at 12 noon today and posted the matter for further consideration at 3.30 PM today.The applicants submitted that all the sureties were physically present in trial court despite their advance age/ professional obligations, on 15.06.2021 (from 12 pm-5.00 pm), and on16.06.2021 from 1pm to 5pm again. All sureties of the Applicant and their bonds and ...

[BREAKING] 'Trial Court Cannot Be Lax Once There Is A Bail Order' : Delhi High Court On Issue Of Students Activists' Release In Riots Case

Shreya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shreya

[BREAKING] 'Trial Court Cannot Be Lax Once There Is A Bail Order' : Delhi High Court On Issue Of Students Activists' Release In Riots Case

Shreya

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shreya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers