[Delhi Riots] Delhi court denies bail to Gulfisha, Tasleem Ahmed; rejects plea for parity with Pinjra Tod activists

A Delhi Court has rejected the bail plea of Gulfisha Fatima and Tasleem Ahmed in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case in connection with the northeast Delhi riots of February 2020 [State v. Gulfisha Fatima, Tasleem Ahmed]..Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat rejected Gulfisha's plea noting that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the accusation were prima facie true..“Hence, embargo created by Section 43D of UAPA applies for grant of bail to the accused and also, the embargo contained in Section 437 CrPC,” added the order..Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) places an additional condition before releasing a person on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused has been guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.Similarly, Section 43D of the UAPA stipulates, “…such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”.One of the grounds for seeking bail was parity with the bail granted by the Delhi High Court to Pinjra Tod activists Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita.However, the Sessions Judge noted that the effect of the said order had been stayed by the Supreme Court."Asking this Court to follow the High Court (bail) order, the effect of which has been stayed by the Supreme Court of India is to disregard the order of the Apex Court," the judge said..Asking this Court to follow the High Court (bail) order, the effect of which has been stayed by the Supreme Court of India is to disregard the order of the Apex CourtAdditional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat.It was also contended on behalf of the accused, as recorded in the order, that the Supreme Court saying that the High Court’s order was not to be treated as a precedent, will not have a bearing in this case as it was not a speaking order.The judge, however, rejected the argument.“By making such a submission in the bail application; by filing the bail order dated 15.06.2020 of the High Court of Delhi and during arguments, and that too so vehemently, not only is the Counsel negating the order of the Supreme Court of India granting stay of the order of bail dated 15.06.2021 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, but also asking this Court to essentially follow the High Court order, the effect of which has been stayed by the Supreme Court of India and thus, to disregard the order of the Apex Court,” said Judge Rawat..MBA graduate Fatima was arrested on April 11, 2020, and later charge-sheeted with former JNU student Umar Khalid, United Against Hate activist Khalid Saifi, Congress ex-councillor Ishrat Jahan, AAP ex-councillor Tahir Hussain, RJD youth wing’s Meeran Haider, Pinjra Tod activists Gulfisha Fatima, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Tasleem Ahmed, besides others.Ahmed, who was stated to be only an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protestor, was arrested on June 24, 2020, in the present case. He, too, was denied bail on a similar reasoning..Meanwhile, another accused Ishrat Jahan was granted bail by the same court on March 14 and walked out of prison on Wednesday evening. .Advocate Mehmood Pracha represented the accused.Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for the State..[Read Orders]