SC clarifies verdict on Umar Khalid is not going to prejudice HC’s observations on Sharjeel Imam 

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday clarified the observations made in respect of JNU pupil Sharjeel Imam within the Delhi High Court verdict, which rejected the bail plea of co-accused Umar Khalid in a case of alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, is not going to prejudice his case pending earlier than the court docket.

A bench of Justices S Okay Kaul and A S Oka, which was listening to Imam’s plea in regards to the remarks made towards him within the October 18 judgement of the excessive court docket, stated one of many paragraphs within the verdict clarified “nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case”.

“This happens when people argue bail applications like it is an appeal on merits,” Justice Kaul noticed, including that bail functions shouldn’t be argued for over 10 minutes.

In its verdict rejecting former JNU pupil Khalid’s plea in search of bail, the excessive court docket had stated he was in fixed contact with different co-accused and allegations towards him had been prima facie true having fastidiously gone by means of the charge-sheet and taking into account the truth that the appellant (Khalid) was in fixed contact with different co-accused individuals, together with Sharjeel Imam, who arguably is on the head of the conspiracy; at this stage, it’s troublesome to type an opinion that there are not any cheap grounds for believing that the accusation towards the petitioner is prima facie not proved,” the excessive court docket had stated in its verdict.

During the listening to earlier than the highest court docket, the counsel showing for Imam instructed the bench they’re constrained to maneuver the apex court docket as critical prejudice could be triggered to the petitioner as a result of observations made by the excessive court docket within the order denying bail to one of many co-accused within the case.

“We have noticed that in paragraph 68 of the judgement, the division bench of the high court has clarified that the observations shall not tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case,” the bench stated.

“We clarify that any observations made in respect to the petitioner (Imam) will not prejudice the petitioner,” the highest court docket stated.

Justice Kaul noticed he finds it an entire wastage of time when the listening to on bail functions goes on and on.

Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and several other others have been booked below the anti-terror regulation the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 folks useless and over 700 injured.

The violence erupted throughout the protests towards the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday clarified the observations made in respect of JNU pupil Sharjeel Imam within the Delhi High Court verdict, which rejected the bail plea of co-accused Umar Khalid in a case of alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, is not going to prejudice his case pending earlier than the court docket.

A bench of Justices S Okay Kaul and A S Oka, which was listening to Imam’s plea in regards to the remarks made towards him within the October 18 judgement of the excessive court docket, stated one of many paragraphs within the verdict clarified “nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case”.

“This happens when people argue bail applications like it is an appeal on merits,” Justice Kaul noticed, including that bail functions shouldn’t be argued for over 10 minutes.

In its verdict rejecting former JNU pupil Khalid’s plea in search of bail, the excessive court docket had stated he was in fixed contact with different co-accused and allegations towards him had been prima facie true having fastidiously gone by means of the charge-sheet and taking into account the truth that the appellant (Khalid) was in fixed contact with different co-accused individuals, together with Sharjeel Imam, who arguably is on the head of the conspiracy; at this stage, it’s troublesome to type an opinion that there are not any cheap grounds for believing that the accusation towards the petitioner is prima facie not proved,” the excessive court docket had stated in its verdict.

During the listening to earlier than the highest court docket, the counsel showing for Imam instructed the bench they’re constrained to maneuver the apex court docket as critical prejudice could be triggered to the petitioner as a result of observations made by the excessive court docket within the order denying bail to one of many co-accused within the case.

“We have noticed that in paragraph 68 of the judgement, the division bench of the high court has clarified that the observations shall not tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case,” the bench stated.

“We clarify that any observations made in respect to the petitioner (Imam) will not prejudice the petitioner,” the highest court docket stated.

Justice Kaul noticed he finds it an entire wastage of time when the listening to on bail functions goes on and on.

Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and several other others have been booked below the anti-terror regulation the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 folks useless and over 700 injured.

The violence erupted throughout the protests towards the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).