N-E Delhi riots: HC issues notice on bail plea of Jamia student Asif Tanha in UAPA case

new delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed the prosecution three weeks' time to file its reply to the bail application moved by Jamia Millia Islamia student and anti-CAA activist Asif Iqbal Tanha, arrested under the stringent UAPA in a case related to the north-east Delhi riots last February.

However, for a short while during the hearing when no legal counsel was seen representing the Delhi Police, Justice Siddharth Mridul remarked, "So strange, a matter relating to personal liberty and we don't even know who will take notice", according to legal news website Bar & Bench.

The bench of Justices Mridul and AJ Bhambhani issued notice to the prosecution and listed the matter for further hearing on March 12.

Tanha has challenged a trial court's October 26, 2020 order by which his bail application was dismissed on the ground that he allegedly played an active role in the entire conspiracy and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations against him were prima facie true.

Tanha was arrested in the case in May last year for allegedly being part of a premeditated conspiracy in the riots.

Advocates Siddharth Aggarwal and Sowjhanya Shankaran, representing Tahna, submitted that they have challenged the refusal to grant him bail and added that the accused shall be granted the relief as he has been in custody since May 2020 and even the charge sheet has been filed.

The prosecution was later represented through special public prosecutor Amit Mahajan.

The trial court, in its October 26, last year order, had said that since there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against Tanha were prima facie true, hence, the embargo created by Section 43D of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) applied for grant of bail to the accused and the bail application was dismissed.

Under section 43 D of UAPA, an accused should not be released on bail or on his own bond if the court was of the opinion that the accusation against such person was prima facie true.

Tanha's counsel had claimed before the trial court that he was not present in Delhi during the riots and did not visit any of the protest sites where rioting and violence occurred.

The counsel had further contended that there was no physical evidence connecting Tanha to the riots and no allegations with respect to any funds being received by him for terrorist activities.

The prosecutor had opposed the bail plea saying there were statements of protected witnesses in the case which clearly showed the alleged role of Tanha in the conspiracy.