New Delhi, Dec 9 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that the observations made by the Delhi High Court against Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student, Sharjeel Imam while denying bail to Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, will not prejudice Imam's case.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also comprising Justice Abhay S Oka while hearing Imam’s plea to expunge certain remarks made by the Delhi High Court with regard to him ordered, “We clarify that any observations made in respect of the role of the petitioner in the impugned order will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner.
It also observed and said that the bail applications should not be heard by courts for more than ten minutes.
Justice Kaul said lengthy hearings lasting for days in bail matters is a waste of the court's time, adding, "I find it a complete waste of time when bail applications are heard for on and on... like an appeal on merits. Bail applications should be heard for not more than 10 minutes.”
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Imam, told the Supreme Court bench that the Delhi High Court has made elaborate findings against him while considering the bail application of co-accused in the case.
During the course of the hearing, Justice Kaul said the division bench of High Court has clarified in later paragraph that observations will not impact merits of the case.
JNU student, Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday had knocked the doors of the Top Court seeking to expunge certain observation of the Delhi High Court, which noted in its order of October 18, saying Imam and another accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, Umar Khalid were in constant touch.
Imam in his plea filed before the Supreme Court, said, "there is absolutely no evidence on record to justify the Delhi High Court observations."
A division bench of the Delhi High court, headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul and also comprising Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, had on October 18, in its order had dismissed Khalid's bail plea amd noted that Khalid's name finds mention from the beginning of the conspiracy till the riots and he was a active member of WhatsApp groups and had also participated in various conspiratorial meetings.
Imam said that the Delhi High Court, in its order while rejecting Umar Khalid’s bail plea, made certain observations and remarks against him when he was not even a party in the said petition.
Imam also said the Delhi High Court erred in making the observations against him in Umar Khalid's appeal and as such, they are not an integral part of the order, the appeal filed by Imam, before the Supreme Court said.
Imam, in his appeal, said that the remarks were made in complete defiance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and he is aggrieved by such remarks as it vitiates his right to a fair trial.
He also said that at no point was his bail application heard along with that of Umar Khalid and sought direction that his appeal pending before the High Court be heard uninfluenced by the observations.
UNI SM SHK2053