Delhi riots 2020: HC judge recuses self from hearing bail plea of Umar Khalid
New Delhi (PTI): Delhi High Court judge Justice Amit Sharma on Monday recused himself from hearing the bail plea of former JNU student Umar Khalid in a UAPA case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the riots here in February 2020.
The matter was listed for hearing before a division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Sharma.
This has to go before another bench, Justice Singh said.
"List before another bench, of which Justice Amit Sharma is not a member, on July 24," the court ordered.
Khalid, who was arrested by the Delhi Police in September 2020, has assailed a recent trial court order refusing to grant him bail in the case.
Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots in the national capital, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence had erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).
On May 28, the trial court had rejected Khalid's plea seeking regular bail for the second time, saying its previous order dismissing his first bail application had attained finality.
"When the Delhi High Court has already dismissed the criminal appeal of the applicant (Khalid) vide order dated October 18, 2022, and thereafter, the applicant approached the Supreme Court and withdrew his petition, the order of this court as passed on March 24, 2022 (on the first bail plea), has attained finality and now, in no stretch of imagination this court can make analysis of the facts of the case as desired by the applicant and consider the relief as prayed by him," the trial court had said.
On October 18, 2022, the high court had upheld the dismissal of the first bail plea and said the city police's allegations against him are prima facie true.
The high court had said the anti-CAA protests "metamorphosed into violent riots", which "prima facie seemed to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings" and the statements of the witnesses indicate Khalid's "active involvement" in the protests.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC rejects plea seeking permission for protest against Gaza `genocide'
CPM decries court's view
_vb_77.jpeg)
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court on Friday rejected a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) against Mumbai police's refusal to allow a protest against the alleged genocide in Gaza, and advised the party to focus on domestic issues.
The CPI(M) criticised the court's remarks, claiming that it ignored constitutional freedoms and India's traditional support for Palestinian freedom and statehood.
The party moved the court after the police last month denied the All India Peace and Solidarity Organisation a permission to stage a rally at Azad Maidan ground in south Mumbai to protest the "genocide" in Gaza.
A bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad dismissed the petition, stating that the party should concentrate on problems affecting the country instead of focusing on issues thousands of miles away.
Advocate Mihir Desai, appearing for the CPI(M), told the HC that police denied permission on the ground that it could lead to a law and order problem.
But citizens have the right to demonstrate at a spot designated for such events, and the possibility of law and order situation could not be a reason to deny that right, he contended.
The court, however, did not accept the argument.
In a statement, CPI (M) criticised the court's stand.
"The Polit Bureau of the CPI (M) strongly condemns the observations of the Bombay High Court bench while rejecting an application by the party to challenge the Mumbai Police's refusal to allow a protest action against the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza," it said.
While rejecting the plea, the court called into question the patriotism of the party, the CPI (M) claimed.
The HC also opined that the party does not understand `what this could do to the foreign affairs of the country' and, instead of taking up issues such as garbage dumping, pollution, sewerage and flooding it was protesting about something happening far away on foreign land, the CPI (M) further claimed.
The HC appeared to be unaware of either the provisions of the Constitution which enshrines the rights of a political party, or the "history of our country and our people's solidarity with the Palestinians and their legitimate right to homeland," the party said.
The HC observations appeared to be "in line with the central government," the CPI (M) said.
Mahatma Gandhi, the national movement and "subsequent foreign policy of independent India" had not flinched from supporting the cause of Palestinian people's right to freedom and homeland, the party said.
The HC also did not take into account "unequivocal condemnation globally against Israeli action and the stated positions of the UN bodies and the International Court of Justice," the CPI(M) said.
