The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will hear on January 9 the bail plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots here.
A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar deferred the hearing after Imam's counsel sought an adjournment in the matter and directed the special public prosecutor to file a soft copy of the charge sheet in the case in the meantime.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will hear on January 9 the bail plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots here.
A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar deferred the hearing after Imam's counsel sought an adjournment in the matter and directed the special public prosecutor to file a soft copy of the charge sheet in the case in the meantime.
The court, which had earlier reserved a verdict on bail plea by United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi in the same case, also permitted his senior counsel to make certain additional legal submissions.
Senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Saifi, argued that the power of a constitutional court to grant bail was not circumscribed by provisions of the UAPA and the court has to see if there have been violations to fundamental rights of the accused under Part III of the Constitution.
"In all cases, whether UAPA or not... what is that a court looks into even in a murder case-- Is there prima facie material against you. In that sense, actually, UAPA does not say anything that is new," she added.
John further emphasised that Saifi was in custody for almost three years and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future.
"My client has suffered about three years of custody... The charge sheet in FIR 59/2020 has 495 witnesses, 33 protected witnesses, 63 investigating officers. Three supplementary charge sheets have been filed. More are expected to come. In which reasonable world will this trial end in the foreseeable future with 15 accused?" John asked. Imam, Saifi and several others, including Umar Khalid, have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots in Northeast Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence had erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). Appeals by other accused Shifa Ur Rehman, Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Salim Malik against the dismissal of their bail applications by the trial court are also pending before the court and would be heard in January.
The court had reserved a verdict on 42-year-old Saifi's bail plea on December 12.
He has earlier argued that the case against him is not based on evidence but "frightening and alarming phrases" by the police and he cannot be kept in indefinite incarceration.
He has said that the whole FIR was set up on the "opinion of two-three men sitting in the special cell office" and he has not committed any violence but he was a "victim of custodial violence".
Delhi Police has opposed his bail plea, saying that its case against Saifi was "not a figment of imagination" and it was clear from the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the accused persons that protests against CAA and NRC had to be followed by chakka jam and then violence.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad has refuted Saifi's claim that he had no connection with co-accused Khalid and Imam, saying that the same was not borne from the material on record and his discharge in another riots case "does not take us to a logical end to say that there was no evidence".
On October 18, the court had refused to grant bail to Khalid in the same case, saying he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true.
It had also observed that Imam "arguably was at the head of the conspiracy" and there existed a string of commonality running amongst all the co-accused. On December 9, the Supreme Court had clarified the observations made in respect of Imam in the high court verdict rejecting the bail plea of co-accused Khalid would not prejudice his bail plea pending there.