Delhi Riots Bail Hearing: ASG Opposes Bail, Highlights Right to Life and Public Safety
Delhi Riots Bail Hearing: ASG Opposes Bail, Highlights Right to Life and Public Safety
The ongoing legal proceedings regarding the Delhi riots of December 2019 and February 2020 took center stage in the Delhi High Court, where the police opposed the bail pleas of multiple accused individuals. The case sheds light on the intricate balance between individual rights and collective safety.
Right to Life: A Comprehensive Perspective
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sharma, representing the Delhi police, argued vehemently against granting bail to the accused, stressing that the right to life should not be viewed solely in favor of the accused.
- The ASG highlighted the loss of lives during the riots, emphasizing that the victims and injured also had their right to life violated.
- He asserted that the violence, which led to 53 deaths and hundreds of injuries, was the result of a planned conspiracy orchestrated by forces hostile to India.
Details of the Incident and Casualties
- The riots caused significant disruption, with 700 civilians injured and 208 police personnel hurt, including the tragic death of one police officer.
- The violence brought the national capital to a standstill, underscoring the gravity of the events.
Legal Framework and Bail Conditions under UAPA
The accused, including prominent names such as Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Saleem Khan, Saleem Malik, Athar Khan, and Gulfisha Fatima, have been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
- ASG Sharma clarified that under UAPA, bail can only be granted if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accused are not guilty.
- He further argued that, in such grave cases, the principle of "jail is an exception, bail is a rule" does not apply. Instead, "Jail is the rule" when there is sufficient evidence suggesting guilt.
Opposition to Delay Argument by the Accused
The defense argued delays in the trial as a ground for granting bail. However, the ASG countered:
- Delay in grave offences is not a valid ground for bail.
- The trial court had already provided ample time for framing charges, and the delay stemmed from the accused themselves.
Contention of Contradictions in Evidence
The ASG dismissed claims of contradictions in evidence raised by the defense.
- He emphasized that contradictions must be substantial and evident, not surface-level or speculative.
Impact of the Riots
The ASG concluded his arguments by reminding the court of the mass violence that shook Delhi.
- He reiterated that the riots were a planned conspiracy, disrupting public order and causing extensive harm.
- This necessitates a stricter stance to ensure justice and public safety.
Next Steps in the Legal Process
The Delhi High Court's division bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, has listed the matter for further arguments. The court's decision on the bail pleas is awaited and will be pivotal in shaping the legal discourse surrounding the Delhi riots.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Rights and Safety
The case underscores the challenges of balancing individual freedoms with public safety in cases of mass violence. The decision will likely set a precedent for handling similar cases under UAPA and other stringent laws in India.
Comments
Post a Comment