New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an accused in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 case, in connection with the northeast Delhi riots, against a trial court order allowing the Delhi Police more time to probe the matter.

The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in a petition filed by Khalid, a member of the group ‘United Against Hate’, who is an accused in a case filed by the Crime Branch in March over an alleged “pre-planned conspiracy”.

The lower court had last month allowed the investigating agency’s application for extension of time for a probe till September 14.

Advocates Bhavook Chauhan, Rajat Kumar, Harsh Bora, Praavita Kashyap, Tushar Yadav on behalf of the Khalid , argued that  the order of the lower court violates principles of natural justice as he was neither provided a copy of the application nor given a “meaningful opportunity” to oppose it.

The counsel on behalf of the Delhi Police, ASG Aman Lekhi, advocates Ujjwal Sinha, Shantnu Shara, Dhruv Pande, Aniket Seth, Samarth Khanna submitted that the necessary ingredients for seeking extension of time for completion of the investigation were set out in the UAPA and judgments passed by the Supreme Court and the same were fully complied with.

Further, in the present case, Khalid was anyway given full opportunity to oppose the application for extending the time for completion of the investigation.

After recording the submissions of the parties, the Court noted that by virtue of the proviso to Section 167 CrPC, as introduced by virtue of Section 43D(2)(b) UAPA, the detention of a UAPA accused could be extended to a period of one hundred and eighty days. The same could be done only if the court concerned is satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor on the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of ninety days.

observed by the High Court.

Read Also: SC ‘astonished’ at a lower court framing indictment against political leader after 36 years

Court is of the view that ample opportunity was provided to Khalid to make a representation to oppose the extension of time.

In view of the above observation  the Court held that petition deserved to be dismissed.

-India Legal Bureau

A Delhi Court on Friday Rejected the bail application filed by Shahrukh Pathan, who allegedly opened fire at a policeman during the communal violence in North-East Delhi in February this year. 

“The Right to Protest is a fundamental right in a democracy but the right of peaceful protest and open criticism of government policies does not extend to disturb the public order…keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused. Bail application accordingly stands dismissed,” said Additional Session Judge Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra while dismissing the Bail plea. 

During the proceedings Special Public Prosecutor D.K. Bhatia appearing for Delhi Police vehemently opposed the bail application and told the court that it was Pathan who led the mob in the area and the investigation is still going on. 

Counsel Asghar Khan representing Pathan had sought the bail contending that there was delay in lodging of FIR and on ground overcrowding in jails which poses higher risk of catching coronavirus. Khan sought bail on ground that he has clean antecedents and charge-sheet has already been filed in the case.  

The Delhi High Court had on Tuesday directed District & Sessions Judge, North-East Delhi to ensure that the bail application, if any, filed by the accused Shahrukh of Delhi riots, shall be heard and decided within two days of it being filed.

Pathan has been charged under FIR No.51/2020, P.S. Jaffarabad, under Sections 186/307/353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

A 350-page chargesheet was filed in Karkardooma Court against Shahrukh Pathan, Kaleem Ahmad and one Ishtiyak Mallik on May 1.

-India Legal Bureau