Delhi riots conspiracy accused Gulfisha Fatima told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that prolonged incarceration of the accused as undertrial prisoners will make "a caricature of our criminal justice system".
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Fatima, told a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, that such lengthy incarceration amounts to pre-trial conviction."This will make a caricature of our criminal justice system. Nobody needs to be punished like this unless they are convicted. This is pre-trial conviction," Singhvi said.
Pertinently, he also took strong objection to the Delhi High Court order denying bail to the accused, particularly that aspect of the order which had said that a hurried trial would be to the detriment of the accused. He likened the reasoning given by the High Court to the infamous emergency era verdict of the Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur case.
"There is no trial ending in sight, therefore you keep intoning that it’s a serious crime. “Hurried trial would be detrimental to the rights of the appellant and state” - this is misplaced consideration (by the High Court) for the petitioner. I would rather not have this consideration by the High Court. “To care which is almost maternal in nature” - this was a line in ADM Jabalpur. This hurried trial is misplaced consideration for me. I’d rather not have it," Singhvi said.
Another accused Umar Khalid told the Court today that he was not responsible for the delay in trial and the same could be attributed to the police filing repeated supplementary chargesheets. The Court was hearing the bail applications filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
The riots occurred in February 2020 following clashes over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As per the Delhi Police, the riots caused the death of 53 persons and injured hundreds.The present case pertains to allegations that the accused had hatched a larger conspiracy to cause multiple riots. The FIR in this case was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. Most have been in custody since 2020.
Meanwhile, the Delhi Police argued that the six accused cannot seek parity with the three other accused who were granted bail earlier by the Delhi High Court.Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for accused Gulfisha Fatima, highlighted how supplementary chargesheets were being filed continuously to deny bail.Singhvi said that "mighty" declarations by courts in various judgments about liberty are pointless if a person has to remain behind bars for 5 to 6 years as undertrial.He said that the prolonged incarceration of Fatima will make a caricature of our criminal justice system.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, alleged that the prosecution cites something in the chargesheet but then says they will not rely on it when they are asked in court to produce/ supply the same.If bail is not granted, Khalid will have to be in jail for another three years as undertrial though no single act of violence has been attributed to him, he submitted
"Their contention is that provocative speech instigated people," Justice Kumar remarked."He said I gave a speech in 2016 saying 'Bharat tere tukde honge'. That was not made by me. It’s not even attributed to me. I have not even made such a statement," he said."Who made the statement then," the Bench asked.Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, said Imam was already in jail for a month when the riots happened.
Follow us
