The next day, on 23 June, Mehta admitted that the police had no objection to Zargar’s release on “humanitarian grounds” and was granted bail on certain conditions – no visit without permission, no affected witnesses, activities. There is no preoccupation in which it is being investigated.
As advocate Gautam Bhatia points out, bail is granted on humanitarian grounds due to the applicant’s personal circumstances – such as old age, illness, pregnancy, a marriage – and not the merits of the case.
This has been hailed as a welcome move, noting that various national and international human rights organizations advocated detention of Zargar and others during the epidemic – The International Federation for Human Rights, American on this list Includes the Bar Association and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. However, the grounds for release are a peculiar concession – arguments made the day before, as well as denials of bail in three earlier hearings – under the same circumstances.
“I am happy that the state won on humanitarian grounds and agreed to Safura’s bail, but the question is what was preventing him from doing so before the Sessions Court or the magistrate?” Chitranshul Sinha, records, asks Supreme Court lawyer.
“If you look at the order of the lower court, the bail was denied because the court said that it was an embarrassment for him to give bail due to Section 43D (5) of Uppa. So HC actually went to its correctness. Will. The state accepted humanitarian grounds, because in my opinion, they did not want any order on merit as it would have weakened their cases against other riot accused. Sinha says, “In my view it was a strategic move. “
Usually, in a case regarding bail, the state opposes the plea made by the accused on humanitarian grounds and an order is passed by the court on merit. This is not the case in this case, given that the prosecution has stopped opposing this argument. However, the concession is conditional in that it clearly stipulates that it will not be considered as a precedent in any other case.
Against this backdrop, the decision to accept humanitarian grounds has influenced the question of what effect such an order would have on other arrests in the case. For example yesterday, the Delhi High Court rejected the demand for the release of Gulfisha Fatima, who protested against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and was also arrested in the Delhi riots case.
“Remember that till yesterday in court, the Delhi Police, which comes under the central government, was quoting jail statistics and claiming that pregnancy is not the basis for bail. It is not that they change their hearts overnight. Gaya, ”says lawyer Guneet Kaur.
“This is a very strategic move because I think the lawyers on behalf of the government have given a bail order which will go into the nature of the investigation based on the status report presented yesterday, and an overview of how The investigation has rejected the facts surrounding Delhi violence, ”she says.
From a legal standpoint, not much has changed. In the charge sheet, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Miran Haider, Harsh Mander and others have been linked with CA-CA activists for the riots in north-east Delhi. However, as reported The caravan, A large number of such complaints by the residents of the riot-affected area have so far been ignored by the Delhi Police – these include the names of various BJP leaders, including Kapil Mishra, who have alleged their involvement in inciting violence.
“The fact is that the BJP’s political view has been that these riots are a product of the CAA protest and that those who are leading it seem to Kapil Mishra and his prosecution that both may remain silent. Advocate Abhim Chimney says “complaints were investigated against him with any aggression, or any arrests made – which is the norm for CA-CAA protesters.”
Mishika Singh, a lawyer who has been working at the grassroots level since the violence erupted, takes a look at what the implications of the “humanitarian grounds concession” might have on political perspectives.
“I think it was a strategic move because even now those who supported Sapura’s arrest would see it as a big heart and charity of the center, even if on merit, it is likely that he would have anyway The bail would have been granted, “says Singh.” Now it will be seen as something given by the Center, because it had authority over something. And this is a wrong idea. ”
.
