NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the Delhi Police to file a chart distinguishing the role of student activist Sharjeel Imam from that of the other accused persons, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, who have been granted bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait asked the police to mention the history of the accused, his role and other details distinguishing his case from the others.
The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain, posted the matter for hearing on February 19.
In his plea, Imam stated that he is a final year PhD student having no criminal antecedents before the present set of cases and satisfies the triple test for the grant of regular bail. He said six of the 18 accused named in the FIR have already been granted the relief.
Imam’s plea contended that “there is no prima facie case against the appellant for commission of ‘terrorist act’ for denying the grant of bail under Section 43(D)5 of the UAPA.”
Appearing for Delhi Police, special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad opposed the plea, saying different roles have been attributed to each accused in the case involving the ‘larger conspiracy, behind the riots.
The SPP referred to the Supreme Court order by which the appeal filed by the police challenging bail granted to Narwal, Kalita and Tanha was dismissed, and said it is for Imam to convince the court about the merit of his case and it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove how his role was different from those who secured bail in the case.
The apex court had said that the order shall not be treated as precedent because the high court had dealt with the merits of the case.
“When the violence broke out in North-East Delhi, the appellant was already in custody and no overt or covert acts during this period can possibly be attributed to him,” Sharjeel’s plea read.
‘Onus to prove merit of bail plea upon Imam’
Appearing for Delhi Police, special public prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the plea. Sighting the Supreme Court order, he said it is for Imam to convince the court about the merit of his case and it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove how his role was different from those who secured bail in the case.