Since March 2022, the bail pleas of Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Md Saleem Khan and Shifa Ur Rehman have been argued twice in the Delhi High Court.
An inviolable principle of the justice system is that an accused is “innocent until proven guilty”. Too often, however, this is observed only in the breach. The Kafkaesque delays in the bail hearings of the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots cases in the High Court illustrate how the bureaucracy of justice makes the process the punishment. It also goes against the grain of recent Supreme Court verdicts that affirm “bail is the rule, jail the exception”, even when the accused is charged under laws with stringent bail provisions such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Since March 2022, the bail pleas of Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Md Saleem Khan and Shifa Ur Rehman have been argued twice in the Delhi High Court. Now, their lawyers are set to do so a third time, from scratch. Each time, the judge presiding over the case has left without delivering an order, when he has been transferred from the Delhi HC as the chief justice of another high court. Meanwhile, the trials of the accused have yet to begin: In many cases of the 2020 Delhi riots, the accused have been in jail for over four years and the court is yet to even frame charges against them. While granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal earlier this month the Supreme Court observed that even in UAPA and PMLA cases, “legislative policy against the grant of bail will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time. The courts would invariably bend towards ‘liberty’ with a flexible approach towards an undertrial.” In August, in Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India, the SC chided high courts for being seemingly reluctant to grant bail in UAPA cases. Again, while granting bail to Manish Sisodia, the SC accused high courts of “playing it safe”.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in his order granting Kejriwal bail, said that “Courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defence against the deprivation of liberty of the citizens.” Through reserved verdicts, bureaucratic delays and lack of urgency, the Delhi HC has fallen far short of the standards expected of it by the Supreme Court. Justice Bhuyan also said that “Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many”. Four years after their arrest, as a new bench hears the bail pleas of the accused all over again, it must deliver its verdict with alacrity. Because not doing so would be further failing the standards set by the apex court.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
First uploaded on: 27-09-2024 at 05:46 IST
