 Amendment Act){kind=link}
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed four weeks time to student activists and Delhi Riots accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal to file reply on the Delhi Police’s petition, challenging the bail granted to them by the Delhi High Court.
A Divisional Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta noted, “The first issue is bail and the other is of considering interpretation in a bail matter.”
The petition has been filed by Delhi Police, challenging the bail granted by the Delhi High Court to the student activists, accused of being involved in the larger conspiracy that lead to riots in the national capital in 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the respondents, submitted, “I’m seeking some time because the charge sheet runs into 20,000 pages…I request a Pen drive be filed, your Lordships may understand.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Government, said that he has no objections to it. Justice Kaul asked Mr Mehta, “What is your grievance, you again want them in the custody?”
To which Mr Mehta said, “Milords, I received request for adjournment and I’ll submit accordingly.
Justice Kaul, while explaining the question further mentioned, “One is the issue of bail, another is…(Mehta intervening) You are not letting us speak, I’ll adjourn it for six months, what is this political matter?”
Also Read: Tripura High Court disposes of suo motu PIL over suicide of woman after leak of intimate videos
Earlier, the bench had issued notice on the plea preferred by Delhi Police and said the verdict shall not be relied on as a precedent by any of the parties before any court. “It is clarified that release of the respondents at this stage not be interfered with,” it added.
The Court posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks, stating, “In these times, when there is paucity of time… It is something that has been troubling us that the matters are argued in the trial courts and High Courts at length and then we expect that we should not give hours for hearing a bail matter.”