[Delhi Riots] Delhi Court Dismisses Pleas of Student Activist Gulfisha Khatoon And 2 Others Seeking Statutory Bail In UAPA Case

Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court Amitabh Rawat observed,

The Counsel for the accused moved an application stating that the accused was arrested on 11.04.2020 in the FIR. The accused is in judicial custody for a period of 183 days, as on 12.10.2020 when the present application was filed.

It was argued that since no report u/s. 173 Cr.P.C has been filed by the police, therefore, the accused has the right to be released on bail under section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. upon the expiry of 90 days of custody.

It was also prayed that accused may be granted statutory bail in the present case. During the course of arguments, the Counsel for the accused referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal no.667/2020 (SLP (Crl) No.2933/20 to contend that the court does not have jurisdiction over the present case.

He referred to Page no. 1 notification dated 03.08.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary (Law, Justice and LA), Government of NCT of Delhi and one Administrative order dated 04.08.2020 issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Moreover it was submitted that the charge-sheet in the present case was filed within time on 16.09.2020.

It was also submitted that the charge-sheet/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed within the extended time and thus, no case for statutory bail is made out.

It was prayed that application be dismissed. It was also submitted that the the Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the accused had no relevance in the present facts, as in that case, the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate for extension of the period of investigation was set aside and in this case, it has been done by a competent court.

Court's Analysis

The Court took into account the fact that the accused Gulfisha was arrested on 11.04.2020 As per the counsel for the accused, no charge-sheet has been filed in the present case till date and thus the accused must be released on the statutory bail.

The Court further observed, as per the accused herself, as stated in the application, she had earlier moved an application dated 10.08.2020 for statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C on the ground that the extension order dated 29.06.2020 under Section 43 D(2)(b) UA(P) Act, 1967 for extending the period of investigation till 29.08.2020 was not legal and without jurisdiction.

The Court also noted that the said application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C was earlier dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2020 by this court.

Importantly, the Court said,

"Thereafter, the next development that took place is that further extension of the period for the investigation, under Section 43 D(2)(b) UA(P) Act, 1967 was granted till 17.09.2020 vide order passed by the undersigned. It is seen as per record, that the charge-sheet in the present case was filed on 16.09.2020 and in fact even cognizance was taken on 17.09.2020. The present accused with counsel was present on the said date." (emphasis supplied)

"Regarding the competence of the Court to deal with the matter, the same is without merit", noted the Court.

The Court remarked that it was presiding over the court of ASJ-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi upon the transfer order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further, the Court also took into account the notification no. F.No.6/13/2020-Judl./Suptlawl 728-793 dated 03 August, 2020 and an order no.2051-52/G-1/Gaz/DHC/2020 dated 04/08/2020 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Thus, the Court concluded that by virtue of the above orders, the undersigned was dealing with the present matter and thus, it was ruled that the court is competent to deal with the present matter

Lastly, the Court said,

"In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present application. Accordingly the present application of accused Gulfisha Fatima under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C stands dismissed." (emphasis supplied)

Notably, identical orders have been passed in the applications filed by Saleem Khan and Tasleem Ahmed, arrested in the case under UAPA, seeking statutory bail