Delhi riots: HC seeks chart to differentiate role of Sharjeel Imam from 3 out on bail

Mustafa said six of the accused have already been granted bail and also pointed to a January 8 order passed by the bench concerning Salim Malik and Shifa-ur-Rehman wherein the police were asked to file a similar comparative chart distinguishing their role with the three people who are on bail.

Opposing this, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appearing for the Delhi Police submitted, “Sharjeel Imam has a lot of history. When we go through the chargesheet we will show the kind of speeches he has given. The kind of activities he has done and cannot be compared”.

He further submitted that when the accused are seeking parity, “they have to make out a case on merits and it cannot be the other way round”.

Prasad also said the 2021 HC bail order was challenged before the Supreme Court wherein the bail order was not disturbed but the SC had directed that such an order of granting bail shall not be taken as a precedent, such order cannot be relied upon.

The bench asked Prasad to therefore file the status in a chart and distinguish his role. “Whatever you want to mention, you mention…role (of the accused) also you can mention,” the bench said.

The matter is next listed on February 19.

The Supreme Court on May 2, 2023, while hearing the Delhi Police’s Special Leave Petition (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 which 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 which 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 the enunciation of law qua interpretation of the provisions of the UAPA Act in a bail matter,” the SC had said.

In its May 2, 2023, order, the SC had also 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 had 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 had 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 utilized 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.”