Shivangi Prakash-
Published on: September 6, 2021, at 14:59 IST
Student leader Umar Khalid withdrew his Bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC on Monday after the prosecution objected to its maintainability in the bigger conspiracy case containing charges under UAPA stemming from the Delhi riots.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, arguing for Khalid, informed Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that they had submitted a substituted plea for Bail under Section 437 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) instead of the earlier filed Section 439 CrPC.
As a result, while issuing notice, the Court has requested the Prosecution’s response to the new Bail petition filed under Section 437 CrPC and has scheduled the matter for hearing on September 8th.
The development came days after Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, in objecting to the maintainability of a Bail plea filed by co-accused Ishrat Jahan in the case, stated that an application filed under Section 437 of the CrPC must have been moved in place of Section 439 of the CrPC, primarily because the Court hearing the plea is a Special Court designated under the UAPA [ Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act] and thus exercises a wide range of powers.
While SPP Prasad insisted on filing a brief response in the new Bail application, Advocate Pais argued that because the merits of the plea have not altered, the Court should continue to hear his submissions without postponement.
“I object to what is written in the application. You’ve written that objection to maintainability is a dilatory tactic. I will have to file a short reply,” submitted SPP Amit Prasad.
“First your interim application has to be decided. Then sec. 439 has to go. Then sec. 437 CrPC application can come in,” Prasad added.
However, the Court decided that, because a new application had been submitted in the case, it would be appropriate to issue notice and wait for the Prosecution’s response before proceeding forward.
As a result, the hearing was postponed until Wednesday.
Also Read: Umar Khalid to Delhi Court: Officer who drafted Chargesheet communal, not me