On one hand, bail in UAPA, on the other hand, Supreme Court sent Umar Khalid’s case to a larger bench.

Bureau Prayagraj. On the one hand, a larger bench will now decide on the bail matter of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are lodged under UAPA. During the hearing in this case during the day on Friday, the Central Government had insisted that the matter be sent to a larger bench. On the other hand, in another case, among other things, Considering the fact that he remained in custody for more than four and a half years, Supreme Court of Jammu and Kashmir ‘big conspiracy‘ Granted bail to UAPA accused Suhail Ahmed Thokar in the case. This matter came to light after the removal of Article 370 of the Constitution. CJI Suryakant, A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed this order.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Friday gave an important decision on the rules for granting bail in cases under terrorism and UAPA i.e. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court has sent the case to a larger bench, raising questions over its earlier decision of not granting bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case. The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice PB Varale gave this order. simultaneously, Two other accused involved in this case – Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi – were also given interim bail of 6 months.

in Delhi in February 2020 CAA There were communal riots in north-east Delhi during the anti-protests. More than 50 people died in these riots. The police accused several people of conspiring to cause the riots. Omar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Many people including Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi were arrested under UAPA.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told the court that the bail rules in UAPA cases should be reconsidered. He raised questions on a recent decision. Earlier, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan, while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andarabi in the narco-terror case, had said that even in UAPA cases ‘bail rules are, prison exception‘. He had expressed doubt on the old decision of Umar Khalid.

SG Raju said that in serious cases like UAPA, equal immunity cannot be given to all the accused. Every case should be looked at individually.

anyway, The Supreme Court said that there is now confusion regarding the principles given in the old decision of KA Najeeb. Especially section 43 of UAPAD(5) How to maintain a balance between strict rules of bail and Article 21 i.e. right to life and liberty, It is important to decide this.

The Supreme Court made it clear that one bench cannot easily change the decision of another equal bench. There should be clarity in the law, Therefore, this issue is being sent to the Chief Justice so that a larger bench can be formed and the final decision can be given.

Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi have been granted interim bail for 6 months. Delhi High Court had earlier rejected his bail plea. Let us tell you that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have not got bail yet. His case will now be decided by a larger bench comprising Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale’s bench was hearing the bail plea of ​​two accused in the 2020 Delhi riots – Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.

Earlier on Friday, during the day’s hearing on terrorism and UAPA Amid differences over bail in cases, the Central Government on Friday asked the Supreme Court to send the issue to a larger bench., Because the decisions of different two-judge benches are contrary to each other. The central government raised the question whether ‘bell rule is, prison is an exception‘ This principle will also apply in serious cases like terrorism, If the trial is delayed? The government cited the examples of 26/11 Mumbai attack convict Ajmal Kasab and Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Saeed.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and lawyer Rajat Nair said in the court‘If Ajmal Kasab had asked for bail after being in jail for 7-8 years, So would you have bailed him out?? there are hundreds of witnesses, It takes time to collect evidence. Similarly, if Hafiz Saeed comes from Pakistan and remains in jail for 5 years in the trial., So will we grant him bail just on the basis of delay??’ The government says that bail should be given after looking at the facts of each case., Not just how much time spent in jail, on this basis.

This decision will impact all bail cases related to terrorism and UAPA in the future. The Supreme Court has prepared for a big decision to further clarify the UAPA bail law. Two accused got relief, But big questions including Umar Khalid are now before the bigger bench.

CJI Suryakant in another case, A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, among other things,, Considering the fact that he remained in custody for more than four and a half years, Supreme Court today in Jammu and Kashmir ‘big conspiracy‘ Granted bail to UAPA accused Suhail Ahmed Thokar in the case. The bench also said that if the appellant fails to cooperate in the ongoing trial, Then it will be considered as misuse of the relief given.

Importantly, the Court had earlier issued orders from time to time to ensure that important/protected witnesses testifying against the petitioner could record their statements without any fear (before the release of the petitioner). during today’s hearing, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj said that although investigation of some important/protected witnesses is still pending., But his statements are related to the role of co-accused, Not from the petitioner.

Given that some of the co-accused have been granted bail, That the case may take time to complete, and taking into account the period already spent in custody, The court granted bail to the petitioner. bail bond related NIA The deposit was directed to be made to the satisfaction of the court. the said court, While ensuring the presence of the petitioner in the concerned police station, She will impose conditions as per her wish.

at the request of his lawyer, The court told the petitioner NIA Also given permission to seek permission from the court to appear virtually (like co-accused); This request will be considered by the court in accordance with law. it The masterminds of the big conspiracy were big leaders of various terrorist organizations., In which Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), Al-Badr and other organizations present in Pakistan were involved.

The charge sheet further alleges that this conspiracy was hatched after the removal of Article 370., The purpose of which was to re-instigate incidents of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir as well as in other parts of India.According to state agency, terrorist group, With its facilitators and leaders based in Pakistan as well as its over-ground workers within India (OGWs) in collaboration with, Involved in influencing and radicalizing easily influenced local youth, So that they can be recruited and trained to participate in terrorism incidents.

STF Told that this gang Central Armed Police Force, The Secretariat was rigging the recruitment examinations of Security Forces and B Rifles. The accused had made arrangements to provide correct answers to the candidates by influencing the online examination system in a technical manner. It was told that about Rs 4 lakh was charged from each candidate to pass the examination.

Investigation revealed that the accused directly SSC The server was not hacked. Instead, a proxy server was installed at the examination centre. The question paper was sent to the solvers sitting outside through a screen sharing application. From there the questions were solved and correct answers were sent to the candidates.

Police said that Arun Kumar handled the technical work and operated the proxy server system. STF Investigating the entire network in depth. The agencies are also trying to find out whether the same method was used in other recruitment examinations also.