E-Paper
Delhi HC reserves order on former councillor’s plea in riots case
New Delhi:
New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on a plea filed by former Congress municipal councillor Ishrat Jahan -- charged with the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for her alleged role in the northeast Delhi riots -- challenging a trial court order granting more time to the investigating agency to complete its probe.
During a hearing before Justice Suresh Kait, the police opposed the plea and said the high court should not interfere in the matter and that there was no infirmity in the order of the additional sessions judge.
Appearing for Jahan, her counsel, Lalit Valecha, said the trial court order was “erroneous”, “bad in law” and “wrong on facts”. He said the prosecutor had not applied his mind while filing the application in the trial court.
While Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra said he was authorised to represent the state and Delhi Police, advocate Amit Prasad said he was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor by the L-G to represent the police in riots cases.
The high court allowed both the counsels to argue and submit their respective status reports in the matter as it had made clear in an earlier hearing that it was not going to enter into the controversy over which lawyer will represent the police.
The high court has already reserved its order on the issue of who is authorised to represent police in another riots matter involving a school principal, Faisal Farooq.
Mehra told the court that it need not look into the reasons given by the prosecutor in the application, seeking an extension of time to complete the probe, as it was something for the sessions judge to look into.
“All the ingredients for extending the time are made out and there is no irregularity in the sessions judge’s order,” he argued.
Prasad contended that the petition does not make out a case and even no question of law is made out here and it be dismissed. He said the reasons warranting an extension of time to complete the investigation in the case has been tested twice, first by the public prosecutor and second by the trial court judge.
Central government standing counsel Amit Mahajan said he will place on record an order passed by another judge of the high court in the case of former JNU student Sharjeel Imam, who had also challenged the order extending time to complete the probe in the UAPA case lodged against him in relation to his alleged instigating speeches during anti Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens protests.
The high court on June 24 had asked the police to respond to Jahan’s plea challenging the trial court’s June 15 order granting a 60-day extension to the police to complete its investigation against her and activist Khalid Saifi.
Jahan, in her plea, claimed “The application by the prosecutor is an abuse of the legal process as the same fails to make out any legal or factual basis that justifies the extension of time.
This exercise is only to subvert and defeat the right of the petitioner to seek regular and statutory bail under the CrPC.”
