Delhi riots: HC seeks chart to discern role of two accused from three out on bail

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that with respect to the bail granted to Asif, Devangana and Natasha, police had moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. Prasad said while the SLP was dismissed, the apex court said these bail orders can’t be relied upon for seeking bail for other accused.

The bench thereafter asked Prasad to file a comparative chart to distinguish the role of the two appellants from the three out on bail. The pleas are next listed on February 8.

The Supreme Court on May 2, 2023, while hearing the police’s SLP, had said, “The respondents have been on bail for almost two years. We see no purpose in keeping this matter alive.”

The Delhi Police had, in its plea before the SC, raised concerns about the comments made by the HC regarding the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 in the bail order, The Indian Express had reported.

Addressing these concerns, the SC in its May 2023 order said, “The impugned order is an extremely elaborate order of bail interpreting various provisions of the UAPA Act. In our view, the only issue that is required to be examined in such matters is whether, in the factual scenario, an accused is entitled to bail or not. It is this argument that persuaded us while issuing notice on 18.06.2021 to observe that the impugned judgment cannot be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the parties in any other proceedings. The idea was to protect the State against the use of the judgment on enunciation of law qua interpretation of the provisions of the UAPA Act in a bail matter.”

The SC, in its order, had noted that another co-accused had sought intervention in the police’s plea “seeking in a way to interpret” the June 18, 2021, order stating that the observations “were coming in the way of seeking bail”.

On this point, the apex court said that if a co-accused is entitled to a plea on parity, it is for him to make such a plea and for the court to consider it. It further said, “… purpose of the interim order dated 18.06.2021 was that the expounded legal position regarding statutory interpretations in a bail matter should not be utilised in proceedings either of co-accused or any other person or any other matter. With the aforesaid clarification, the interim directions dated 18.06.2021 are made the final directions in the matter. On having noticed the aforesaid, we close the present proceedings.”