The Delhi High Court on Friday adjourned the hearing on the bail plea of the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots grand conspiracy case after the public prosecutor said Additional Solicitor General SV Raju would argue the matter for the prosecution.
With the Delhi High Court on vacation from December 25 to January 5, the hearing was adjourned to January 7 and 8, with the prosecution’s statement coming up.
Student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, among others, have been charged with premeditated conspiracy to incite riots in Northeast Delhi between February 23 and February 25, 2020. The accused have been booked for offenses under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention. He was jailed under the Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. More than four years now.
A sessions court in Delhi recently granted seven days interim bail to Khalid from December 28 to attend his first cousin’s wedding and meet his relatives.
Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad told a division bench of Justices Naveen Chawla and Shalindar Kaur, “I have received instructions that only Mr. (SV) Raju (ASG) will argue the matter and we all know that Mr. Raju is unhappy with his daughter’s marriage.” Friday.
On this, Justice Chawla verbally remarked, “How can we stay the bail case like this? … Last time too the bench had released after full hearing.”
Addressing the prosecution, Justice Chawla added, “…we can accommodate till January 7th…that does not mean it will be adjourned on the 7th.”
Meanwhile, the bench dismissed the appeal of Salim Malik, one of the accused in the case, challenging the trial court’s order.
Malik had applied for interim bail in the Shahdara District Court in Karkarduma on November 29. However, when he appeared in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai on December 3, Malik said he wanted to withdraw the interim bail plea. His regular bail petition is yet to be decided.
On verification of Malik’s wife’s medical prescription – Malik was seeking interim bail citing his health – the prosecution informed the trial court on December 6 that the “13 days of rest” stipulated in the prescription was “never advised”. The prosecution should “take appropriate action against the person concerned who procured the medical prescription dated 24.11.2024 of the petitioner/accused’s wife.” The prosecution further argued, “The court should take legal action once the facts of the crime are on record”.
The trial court, while allowing Malik to withdraw his interim bail application, directed a copy of the court order to be sent to the Commissioner of Police “to look into the matter and take necessary action.”
Upholding the action of the judicial court, the division bench said, ‘The court cannot turn a blind eye if fake documents are submitted’, ‘The court has sent the documents for further investigation.
Why should you buy our membership?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be confused and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package