[Delhi Riots] Justice Can't Be Denied Merely On Minor Technical Issues Of Jurisdiction: Ishrat Jahan Tells Delhi Court

A Delhi Court today continued hearing the application filed Former Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan, seeking bail in the alleged larger conspiracy case in Delhi Riots.

Refuting the objection of Prosecution regarding maintainability of the bail application, Jahan contended that justice cannot be denied or hurdled merely because of minor technical issues of jurisdiction.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was informed by Ishrat Jahan's counsel, Advocate Pradeep Teotia that the issue of jurisdiction between Sections 437 or 439 of CrPC had no bearing on the facts of the case including its merits.

"Justice cannot be denied and hurdled just because of minor technical issues, even though it is not there in this case," Teotia argued.

He was responding to the objection raised by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad that the bail application ought to have been filed under Section 437 and not under Section 439, primarily because the Court hearing the plea is a special court designated under UAPA Act and therefore exercises all powers that are before the Court of Magistrate within the rigors of Section 437 of CrPC.

"How will the facts, what I've argued for five to six months, how would that be a hurdle if I mention application under sec. 439 or 437? Even in sec. 439 CrPC, sessions court has the power for dealing with UAPA," he added.

Relying on some judgments on the subject, Teotia requested the Court to adjudicate the minor issue like jurisdiction as early as possible, highlighting the problems faced by Jahan who remains in custody.

"I'm forwarding my request by saying that let this issue be resolved by your honour and let's move on with this. This is a time waste. Let the honourable court decide it. From my side, this will hardly affect adjudication of this case," Teotia requested the Court.

He added "Every time, explaining to a client that tomorrow we'll be heard and we'll come out of court with our collars up, we have an apprehension of being victorious."

Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for adjudication on September 9.

FIR 59/2020 registered against Jahan contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 and other offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Arguing that Jahan must withdraw her application under Section 439 of CrPC, Prasad had submitted that the maintainability of bail applications is at the root of law.

Earlier, Jahan had told the that that there is no iota of evidence to show her involvement in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case and that the prosecution has falsely implicated her in the matter. It was also submitted that Jahan's case is on a better footing than the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail in the matter.

Others who were charge-sheeted in FIR 59/2020 include Former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.

A supplementary charge-sheet was thereafter filed in the case against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam.