Ashish Pandey 
New Delhi:
Nothing suggests the prosecution attempted to delay the trial court proceedings in the UAPA case against the accused persons and the right to speedy trial is not a free pass, Delhi Police said as it opposed in high court the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others on Wednesday.
Appearing before a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad said the delay should be attributed to the accused persons.
“Trial court record does not suggest any attempt on part of the prosecution to delay the matter, rather the boot is squarely and surely on the other leg,” said Sharma.
Prasad said there were judicial orders of the trial court to show how the matter was delayed at the behest of the accused.
“Arguments on charges are going on. Second accused has concluded submissions.. They wanted a delay of two weeks. Despite day-to-day hearings, accused are not coming forward for arguments,” he alleged.
Sharma said the issue of delay had to be balanced with the “complexity” of each case and in cases involving terrorism and integrity of the state, the adjudication was of different standard.
While speedy trial was a necessity, he said, in cases of anti-national activities, long incarceration of the undertrials by itself was not a ground to enlarge them on bail when facts showed their involvement.
“Right to speedy trial was not a free pass.. The right of society must prevail over right of the individual,” he added.
Sharma said the court ought to examine the “intent” of the accused and the “loss of life” before arriving at its decision.
In the present case, the accused persons were in custody for offences attracting a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, he added.
“This is a case where 53 people lost their lives or were made to lose their lives.. Two benches of the high court clearly held that yes, there is a conspiracy made out and yes, UAPA is attracted,” said Sharma.
In conclusion of his arguments, he said the present batch of cases were not bail applications of the accused persons but appeals against the trial court orders refusing them the reprieve and therefore the court should exercise its power accordingly.
Khalid, Imam and others were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the violence, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the CAA and NRC.
While challenging the trial court orders refusing bail, Khalid and others cited their long incarceration and parity with other co-accused who were granted bail.
Most bail pleas, including the ones by Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Khalid Saifi, were filed in 2022, and heard by different benches from time to time. Khalid moved the high court in 2024 seeking bail for the second time, after his plea was dismissed by the high court in October, 2022.
The matter would continue on February 20.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
