New Delhi: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, hearing an application filed by Sharjeel Imam, on Friday disapproved the practice of filing lengthy bail applications and arguing as if a final conviction has taken place.
According to LiveLaw, “Speaking for myself, I find it a complete waste of time of this court or any court to deal with bail applications that go on for pages and pages…The whole argument is made as if the final conviction has taken place.”
The judge – who is second in seniority only to Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud – made these observations while the top court was hearing an application filed by Imam, who is an accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar moved the court to expunge a comment made by the Delhi high court while denying bail to co-accused Umar Khalid which said that Imam was the “main conspirator” in the 2020 riots.
According to LiveLaw, Justice Kaul said that when bail applications were argued at length in the manner in which appeals are argued, “this is what happens”.
Siddharth Dave, the counsel for Imam, explained that the strict conditions Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) that make it almost impossible for bail to be granted necessitated that applications are argued on merit.
Section 43D of the anti-terror law says that a person accused of offences under UAPA cannot be released on bail if the court, after perusing the case diary or the report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.
Dave said, according to LiveLaw, “To overcome the condition in Section 43D, we are forced to argue on the merits of the matter.” However, he agreed in principle that bail applications should not be longer than five pages. Justice Kaul then added that oral arguments during the hearing of bail applications should not exceed 10 minutes.
“You are absolutely right. But now, the legislature has placed such an embargo on us that we have no other choice but to argue on the basis of the case diary, the report, everything,” Dave said. “You have a point,” Justice Kaul said, according to the LiveLaw report.
In his petition, Imam argued that the Delhi high court said he was at the “head of the conspiracy” in a matter which he was not party to, which was in “complete defiance of the law laid down by the apex court and a catena of other judgments reiterating the same principles of law”.
“The observations and remarks in the impugned order have been made qua the petitioner (Imam) without an opportunity having being afforded to explain or defend himself and thereby, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice,” the appeal stated.