New Delhi: Delhi's Karkardooma Court has deferred the hearing on the bail plea of former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, accused of conspiracy in the Delhi riots and has been lodged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Hearing the matter, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat scheduled the next hearing on September 27.
During the hearing on September 1, 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 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.
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the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court in Watali's case, said that the petition filed under Section 439 should be withdrawn.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.
Read: CBI acquits last three accused in Ishrat Jahan case
Teotia said that if he 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 ignorant 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.
An FIR has been registered against Ishrat 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, Ishrat Jahan 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," on 26 February 2020 in Jagatpuri which lead to the massacre.
Read: Delhi court defers hearing on Ishrat Jahan's bail plea
