Sharjeel Imam contends UAPA invoked at eleventh hour just to deny him bail, Delhi HC issues notice
Imam has contended that invocation of UAPA on the 88th day of his custody was with the sole intention to curtailing his liberty by depriving him of right to the statutory bail after custody of 90 days
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice in Sharjeel Imam's plea seeking bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the case related to alleged inflammatory speeches during the anti-Citizenship Act protest near Jamia Police Station, earlier this year, reports legal news website BarandBench.com.
The notice was issued by a Single Judge Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao.
The petition also seeks to set aside an order passed by the trial court allowing Delhi Police to probe him for alleged commission of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Under UAPA, the permissible period of investigation is 180 days.
Imam was arrested on January 28 in pursuance of an FIR under Section 153A/124A/505 of the Indian Penal Code.
In his petition before the Court, Imam has contended that the invocation of UAPA on the 88th day of his custody was with the sole intention to curtailing his liberty by depriving him of right to the statutory bail after custody of 90 days in terms of Section 167(2) CrPC.
Pursuant to the invocation of UAPA, Imam's plea for default bail under Section 167 CrPC was rejected.
It is contended that the order allowing more time to Delhi Police to carry out probe under UAPA was devoid of the essential requirements under Section 43D(2) of UAPA.
It is alleged that neither was Imam given notice under the said Section nor was a report by the Public Prosecutor submitted.
The request of an IO for extension of time is no substitute for the mandatory report of the Public Prosecutor, it is argued.
It is contended that application of extension of time was devoid of the genuine “compelling reasons” that are required to be disclosed for extension of probe time beyond 90 days.
The matter would be heard next on June 10.