NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Monday issued notice to Delhi Police on the bail plea of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shifa Ur Rehman in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, in which they face charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria sought Delhi Police's response and posted hearing on October 7. Counsel for the accused sought interim bail at the earliest, saying they had been in jail for five years.
Student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shifa Ur Rehman, facing charges under UAPA in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, cited SC's earlier ruling to seek bail as they have been in jail for five years and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within reasonable time.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal told the bench that it was a shocking case where students are in jail for more than five years and urged that the court should first grant them interim bail. The bench, however, said it would hear and decide finally the main petition.
Sibal further submitted that an early date be given in the case and pressed for early listing. "Before Diwali, so that they can be out by Diwali. They are all there for more than five years," he said. Accepting his request, the court posted the case to Oct 7.
All the petitioners have raised similar grounds to get bail and invoked the apex court's earlier ruling. "It is humbly submitted that on consideration of the long duration of incarceration as well as the bail restricting provision of several other special Acts, it has been consistently laid down by this court in a plethora of judgments that in cases where there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a reasonable time, the rigors of statutory restrictions should melt down and the constitutional courts should weigh in favour of granting bail in such matters," said the petition filed by Imam.
They said that materials or overt acts as alleged by police are extremely weak and flimsy, warranting interference by this court. Referring to SC's last year verdict in the 'Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra' case on grant of bail in UAPA cases, they said over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
"If the state or any prosecuting agency, including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. The article of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime," the court had said in its verdict.
It had further held that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part-III of the Constitution (pertaining to fundamental rights).
The accused approached SC, challenging a Delhi HC order which denied bail to the activists and four others. Rejecting their bail plea, HC had said that any "conspiratorial violence" under the guise of freedom of speech of citizens could not be allowed. "Such actions must be regulated and checked by the state machinery as they do not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech, expression and association," an HC bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had said.
Besides the activits, the others who were denied bail include Mohd Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed. The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by a different HC bench on Sept 2.
Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria sought Delhi Police's response and posted hearing on October 7. Counsel for the accused sought interim bail at the earliest, saying they had been in jail for five years.
Student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shifa Ur Rehman, facing charges under UAPA in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, cited SC's earlier ruling to seek bail as they have been in jail for five years and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within reasonable time.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal told the bench that it was a shocking case where students are in jail for more than five years and urged that the court should first grant them interim bail. The bench, however, said it would hear and decide finally the main petition.
Sibal further submitted that an early date be given in the case and pressed for early listing. "Before Diwali, so that they can be out by Diwali. They are all there for more than five years," he said. Accepting his request, the court posted the case to Oct 7.
All the petitioners have raised similar grounds to get bail and invoked the apex court's earlier ruling. "It is humbly submitted that on consideration of the long duration of incarceration as well as the bail restricting provision of several other special Acts, it has been consistently laid down by this court in a plethora of judgments that in cases where there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a reasonable time, the rigors of statutory restrictions should melt down and the constitutional courts should weigh in favour of granting bail in such matters," said the petition filed by Imam.
They said that materials or overt acts as alleged by police are extremely weak and flimsy, warranting interference by this court. Referring to SC's last year verdict in the 'Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra' case on grant of bail in UAPA cases, they said over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
"If the state or any prosecuting agency, including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. The article of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime," the court had said in its verdict.
It had further held that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part-III of the Constitution (pertaining to fundamental rights).
The accused approached SC, challenging a Delhi HC order which denied bail to the activists and four others. Rejecting their bail plea, HC had said that any "conspiratorial violence" under the guise of freedom of speech of citizens could not be allowed. "Such actions must be regulated and checked by the state machinery as they do not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech, expression and association," an HC bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had said.
Besides the activits, the others who were denied bail include Mohd Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed. The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by a different HC bench on Sept 2.
You may also like
71st National Film Awards: President Draupadi Murmu arrives to present the National Film Awards..
Heartbroken family issue urgent message after daughter dies in nightclub
'I found false wall in my 1926 basement and couldn't believe what was behind it'
Strategically important hydro project in Arunachal gets environmental clearance
Ryder Cup 2025 decided by supercomputer with final result given
