Delhi High Court rejects plea for cancelling Kanhaiya Kumar's interim bail
JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar does not appear to hamper probe in the sedition case, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday and wanted to know from police whether there was any circumstance which requires cancellation of the interim bail granted to him.
New Delhi: JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar does not appear to hamper probe in the sedition case, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday and wanted to know from police whether there was any circumstance which requires cancellation of the interim bail granted to him.
"When your investigation is going on smoothly, what is there which requires his (Kanhaiya's) bail cancellation? He is not hampering the ongoing investigation," Justice P S Teji asked advocate Shailendra Babbar who was appointed as special
public prosecutor (SPP) for representing Delhi Police in the matter.
Responding to the court's query, Babbar said there was no application by the police seeking cancellation of the bail.
"We are not asking for it (bail cancellation)," he said during the hearing in which private persons have filed pleas
seeking cancellation of six months interim bail granted to Kanhaiya on the ground that his speech after his release from
Tihar Jail in March was "anti-national" and he had violated the bail conditions.
Kanhaiya, who was granted interim bail on 2 March by the High Court, is facing sedition charge in connection with an
event at JNU on 9 February where anti-national slogans were allegedly raised and Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru was
hailed as a 'martyr'.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the court also pulled up police for not filing its reply on the petitions after the SPP said
that they had filed a status report in the matter.
"It is a reply in the form of a status report," he said. To this, the judge said, "I want a reply not a status report. Last time it was made clear that you have to file a reply and not a status report".
When the court said that it would hear the matter after the police filed its reply, advocate R P Luthra, appearing for one of the petitioners, said, "What is the purpose of hearing this petition if the period of six months bail will be over. This plea is for cancellation of bail".
The court said if he would argue the matter then it would pass an order. When the petitioner's counsel said that he would argue the matter, the judge said, "Let them (police) file a reply".
"You cannot teach the court how court should function," the judge said and posted the matter for hearing on 9 August.
The court also disagreed with the contention of SPP who said that since Kanhaiya has been named as a respondent in the
plea, he should also be heard.
During the hearing, Luthra told the court that it should decide on his plea before the period of six-month interim bail
When the counsel insisted that the matter should be heard, the judge said, "I will now pass an order. Nobody is with you for cancellation of bail. You cannot be above the court. You have filed the petition and the court will decide on it."
Earlier on 28 April, the hearing in the matter witnessed a confrontation between the AAP government and Delhi Police over the issue of representing the state.
Delhi government's senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra had objected to presence of Lieutenant Governor-appointed SPP in the matter.
AAP government had earlier told the court that there was no violation of any bail condition by the student leader.
The police had earlier said that it cannot comment on the pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to Kanhaiya
without verifying facts and they were investigating whether any bail condition was violated.
Taj Mahal or Tejo Mahalya? The current BJP media in-charge in Ayodhya district, Dr Rajneesh Singh, has filed several RTI applications, seeking information about the heritage site. He says he will now take the matter up with the Supreme Court
The Waqf committee was first issued a notice by the SMC on 1 October, 2021, for removal of "illegal construction" on the ground the petitioner was an "unauthorised occupant" of the land
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla issued notice on the petition by Devendra Nath Tripathi and granted time to the respondents to file their response