New Delhi: Miffed with the Delhi Police’s inability to file a response to bail applications filed by 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case accused, the Supreme Court Monday refused to adjourn the case by two weeks.
“We have given you enough time. You may be appearing for the first time. Last time we said issue notice and we said in that open court that we will hear this matter on October 27th and will dispose it off,” a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria told Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju when he asked for grant of two weeks’ time to submit the police response.
Later, the bench also told Raju to “examine and think of coming with something”, after the counsel representing accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shifa-ur-Rehman said they had been languishing in jail for five years now.
The lawyers opposed Raju’s request for two weeks’ time, saying: “When the matter is about delay, there cannot be more delay.”
Khalid and others have challenged the Delhi High Court order of 2 September that denied them bail. Notice on their appeals asking for bail was issued by the SC on 22 September.
On the day Justices Kumar and Anjaria issued notice, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, had urged the bench to hear the case before the court shut for a week-long Diwali break. However, the bench had declined it, fixing 27 October to hear the matter.
When the court took up the matter Monday, Raju began his arguments with a request to push the hearing by two weeks because he wanted more time to place the Delhi Police’s stand.
But the bench declined, asking the law officer to argue Tuesday or Wednesday.
“No, no, argue the day after with a counter. Mr Sibal said before Diwali and we said no,” the bench told Raju, who continued to press for a deferment.
At this, the bench told him: “What is the question of a counter-affidavit in a matter? You file a counter, but we will not give you two weeks.”
Raju then requested for a week’s time. Reluctantly, the court gave him time till Thursday, while posting Friday for hearing the case.
“On Friday, you ensure you have proper instructions. We will hear it. See if something can be done, this is only about consideration of bail, five years are already over,” the bench told the law officer, implying the Delhi Police might consider a non-adversarial stand on the bail applications.
However, Raju did not give any assurance. “Let me have a look at it, but sometimes appearances can be deceptive,” he told the bench, prompting the bench to clarify that it was only a question of bail. “We are not saying we have read threadbare (the case). After all, it is a matter of bail,” the bench said.
An HC bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had declined bail to the accused last month, rejecting their argument that they were eligible for bail on the ground of delayed trial. The bench had noted that the trial had reached the stage of arguments on the framing of charges, indicating progress in proceedings.
Allegations of “premeditated and well-orchestrated conspiracy” against the accused were serious and required careful balancing of individual liberty with the safety and security of the public at large, the court noted.
The HC had refused to extend the benefit of an earlier court order granting bail to co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, to Khalid and the others. It said parity could not be claimed as a matter of right, since the roles “ascribed” to the accused were distinct.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Delhi riots conspiracy case trial is caught in a loop—500+ dates, 160+ adjournments and counting