The Delhi Police on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that anti-CAA activist Umar Khalid cannot claim parity with Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, co-accused who secured bail in 2021, because the Delhi High Court order granting them bail was based on an incorrect interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Appearing for the Police, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju argued that the High Court had wrongly held that the UAPA applied only to offences concerning the “defence of India,” and therefore Section 43D(5), the stringent statutory bar on bail, did not apply.
He stated that after concluding that UAPA did not apply, the High Court incorrectly resorted to Section 439 of the CrPC, rather than Section 437 of the CrPC, which governs bail for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to seven years.
Raju noted that when the Delhi Police challenged the 2021 bail orders of Devangana, Natasha, and Tanha, the Supreme Court refused to cancel their bail only because the threshold for cancelling bail is far narrower than the threshold for denying it.
“If bail is granted on a wrong interpretation of law, there is nothing like parity,” he told the bench, emphasising that the Supreme Court had explicitly held that the 2021 judgment could not be used as a precedent by others.
He further pointed out that Khalid’s earlier bail plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court in October 2022.
Although Khalid approached the Supreme Court, he later withdrew the petition in February 2024.
This story was originally published in maktoobmedia.com. Read the full story here.
