The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal by Delhi Police that challenged an order by the Delhi High Court granting bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal in a Delhi Riots case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
A bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah clearly said the High Court’s order shall not be treated as precedent just because of elaborate discussion on merits.
The bench added that the very purpose of interim order was to ensure that interpretation and views on a law should not be enunciated in bail hearing.
The bench clarified that they have not gone into legal position of law’s statutory interpretation one way or the other.
The Court also rejected the Delhi Police request for adjournment.
The bench said that no more (adjournment), it is not possible, not every time.It also recorded the same in its order while rejecting the plea.
The Court said that the bail hearings should not be prolonged and dismissed the appeal reasoning that nothing survived.
The case relates to the Delhi Police probe into the alleged conspiracy by the accused that led to the riots in the capital’s North-East area in February 2020.
On June 15, bail was granted to Kalita, Narwal and Tanha who were arrested in May 2020 and were in custody for almost a year, before the Delhi High Court granted them bail.
The High Court while granting bail,had stated that that the State, in its anxiety to suppress dissent, blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity.
The High Court had held that prima facie, no offence under Sections 15, 17 or 18 UAPA was made-out on the basis of the material on record in the present case against the three.
In June 2021, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the Delhi Police’s appeal against the said Delhi High Court order.
The top court ruled that the order under challenge cannot be treated as a precedent for other accused under the Act to claim bail.
In its appeal, the Delhi Police contended that the High Court’s findings were without any foundation and based more on the social media narrative than the evidence gathered and elaborated in the chargesheet.