New Delhi: Delhi's Karkardooma Court has deferred the hearing on the bail plea of former Congress councilor Ishrat Jahan, accused of conspiracy in the Delhi riots and jailed under UAPA. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat ordered the next hearing September 9.
During the hearing Wednesday, advocate Parvez Haider, appearing for Ishrat Jahan, said that for the last five-six months they have been presenting their arguments and now Delhi Police is saying that the section under which the bail petition has been filed is not maintainable. He quoted some judgements on the matter of the maintainability of the petition and asked the court to decide the matter soon.
Advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, said that the copy of the judgements quoted by Pervez Haider should also be made available to them. The court then ordered that a copy of these judgements should be sent to the court and Delhi Police through e-mail.
Also read: No interim bail for Ishrat Jahan in Delhi violence case
During a hearing August 26, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had said that the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. In this case, a petition under Section 437 should have been filed. Amit Prasad, referring to the decision of the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court in Watali's case, said that the petition filed under Section 439 should be withdrawn.
Amit Prasad's argument was opposed by Ishrat Jahan's lawyer Pradeep Teotia, who said that the court has already heard under Section 439. Then Amit Prasad had said that this petition was not maintainable as it would be abuse of law. Teotia had then asked why this question was not raised earlier and said cruelty was meted out to him. To this, the court said that it agreed with him but asked what to do with the legal question.
Teotia said that had the Delhi Police said this six months ago, he would not have objected, but saying this now they wanted to extend the jail term of the accused. He had said that bail is granted even on oral hearing and this is applicable in UAPA also. To this, Amit Prasad had said that there was a legal provision for this pointing out that Ishrat Jahan herself is a lawyer. Stating that it too was ignrant about this, the court then said if Amit Prasad has cited certain decisions, then these should be seen.
During a hearing August 16, Amit Prasad had said that they needed time to look at the facts and they could not present the arguments. Teotia opposed this and said that this matter has been pending for a long time. Then Amit Prasad had said that he cannot talk if he does not have facts.
Also read: Delhi riots: 'Is it wrong to have political affiliation,?' asks ex-Cong councillor Ishrat
On July 23, the court had issued a notice to the Delhi Police. Prior to this, during a hearing July 12 last, Teotia, had asked whether it was wrong for a person to have political affiliations. Asking what wrong did Ishrat Jahan do, he had said that the purpose of imposing UAPA was to suppress the voice of the people and added that this Act should be reviewed.
Teotia had argued that there was no evidence to show Ishrat Jahan's ties with the co-accused and the witnesses were not genuine. He objected to the allegations made by the Delhi Police that Ishrat Jahan helped fund the protests. He said that this prosecution story was concocted and there has been no change in Ishrat Jahan's spending pattern before and during the violence.
It may be mentioned that on 30 May 2020, the court had granted interim bail of 10 days to Ishrat Jahan to get married. She was arrested February 26, 2020.
