Delhi riots accused Ishrat Jahan to move fresh bail plea

Former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, who has been accused of conspiracy in the Delhi riots and jailed under UAPA, has withdrawn her earlier bail plea during a hearing held in Karkardooma Court. The prosecution has challenged the maintainability of Ishrat Jahan's bail plea filed under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The lawyers of the riot accused alleged that the Delhi Police and prosecution are trying to extend the jail term of Ishrat Jahan

New Delhi: Ishrat Jahan, a former Congress councillor who has been accused of conspiracy in the February 23-29 Delhi riots and jailed under UAPA, will move a fresh bail application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

During a hearing held in Karkardooma Court, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat granted permission to withdraw the petition and file a new plea. Advocate Jitendra Bakshi, who appeared for Ishrat Jahan, said that they are withdrawing the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and will file a fresh bail application under Section 437 of the CPC.

During a hearing on September 1, Advocate Parvez Haider, who appeared for Ishrat Jahan, said that Delhi Police questioned the maintainability of the bail plea after five-six months of court proceedings. He then quoted some judgements on the maintainability of the petition and asked the court to expedite the matter.

Earlier, on 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 and that Section 437 should have been filed. Amit Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, also demanded for a copy of the judgements quoted by Pervez Haider. The court then ordered that a copy of these judgements be mailed to the court and Delhi Police.

The public prosecutor also referred to decisions of Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court in Watali's case, saying that the petition filed under Section 439 should be withdrawn. However, Prasad's argument was opposed by Ishrat Jahan's lawyer Pradeep Teotia, saying that the court had already heard under section 439 and why this question was not raised earlier.

Teotia further said that if the Delhi Police had said this six months ago, he would not have objected, and alleged by saying this now they were trying to extend the jail term of the accused. He had said that bail could be granted even on an oral hearing and this is applicable in UAPA also. To this, Amit Prasad had said that there was a legal provision for this, and pointed out that Ishrat Jahan herself is a lawyer. During a previous hearing on August 16, Prasad had said that they needed time to look at the facts and they could not present the arguments.

Ishrat Jahan's lawyer had also asked whether it was wrong to have political affiliations. What did Ishrat Jahan do wrong? He also added saying that the purpose of imposing UAPA is to suppress the voice and that there was no evidence to show Jahan's relationship with the co-accused and the witnesses were not genuine. He also objected to the allegations made by the Delhi Police that Ishrat Jahan helped fund the protests and that the prosecution's story was fabricated.

An FIR had been registered against Jahan under Sections 109, 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 353 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections of the Arms Act. According to the police, Jahan had incited the crowd stating that "we will die, but we will not move away from here, no matter what the police do, we will retrieve our freedom." According to the police, on 26 February 2020, the police were pelted with stones, and bullets were also fired at them in Jagatpuri.