Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
As soon as the hearing began, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, sought time to file the counter affidavit.
A bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and NV Anjaria refused to grant two weeks’ time and said it would hear the case on October 31.
“We have given you enough time. Last time while issuing notice we had said in open court that we will hear the matter on October 27 and dispose of it.”
“Frankly speaking, there is no question of filing a reply in bail cases,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, said that the petitioner has been in jail for more than five years.
Read more: Justice Surya Kant to be next CJI: Here are his important judgments
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the entire matter was a matter of delay in the trial and there should be no further delay in the hearing.
On September 22, the apex court had issued a notice to Delhi Police seeking its reply.
The activists have moved the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court order passed on September 2.
The high court denied bail to nine people, including Khalid and Imam, saying “conspiratorial” violence cannot be allowed under the guise of demonstrations or protests by citizens.
Besides Khalid and Imam, those who faced bail rejection are Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.
The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by another bench of the high court on September 2.
The High Court said that the Constitution grants citizens the right to protest and demonstrate or agitate, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without weapons, and such actions must be within the ambit of law.
While the High Court said that the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches at public meetings is protected under Article 19(1)(a), and cannot be categorically abridged, it said that this right is “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable restrictions”.
Read more: Shoe thrown at CJI Gavai case: Supreme Court refuses contempt proceedings against lawyer
“If allowed to exercise unbridled right to protest, it would damage the constitutional framework and affect the law and order situation in the country,” the bail rejection order said.
Khalid, Imam and the rest of the accused persons were booked under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the erstwhile IPC for being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, in which 53 people were killed and over 700 were injured.
Violence broke out during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.
The accused, who has denied all the charges against him, have been in jail since 2020 and had moved the high court after a trial court rejected his bail plea.