Read Time: 05 minutes

A Delhi Court took up a plea filed by Shifa Ur Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of the Jamia Milia Islamia (AAJMI), seeking bail in the larger conspiracy case of Delhi Riots and accused under the provisions of UAPA.

Advocate Abhishek Singh appearing for Rehman argued that he was seeking bail on the principles of parity since the high court had granted bail to other accused in the same case.

Singh further argued that there were ten office bearers of AAJMI, however none have been accused in the case and he was being targeted because he had made a complaint against a BJP Minister.

Singh also pointed out that despite the High courts order, Rehman was being denied the right to consult a lawyer of his choice which was a violation of his fundamental right.

It was further submitted that section 45 of UAPA was not adhered to while conducting investigation. Singh submitted that the Delhi Police had recommended sanction on  July 28, 2020 after which a  Report was submitted on July 30. Singh argued  "Was the investigation complete on this date? Was the evidence gathered by this date so that it could be reviewed?"

Singh argued that the investigation could not have been completed on the said date and there was an abuse of the process of law. consequently the provisions were not strictly construed as it required the review committee to do an independent review of the evidence gathered.

Since the provisions were not followed, Rehman was not only entitled to be released on bail but also charges framed against him ought to be quashed, submitted Singh.

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat has listed the matter for next hearing on August 3 at 2pm.

The Delhi Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in May while granting relief to Rehman had observed that the right of a person in detention to consult a legal practitioner of his choice is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and it is not open for the State to dilute this constitutional right on the ground that no purpose would have been served even if such consultation is permitted.

Case Title: Shifa Ur Rehman vs NCT Delhi