The Delhi High Court has issued directions for the trial court to decide expeditiously on the release of Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, all of whom were granted bail by the High Court on Tuesday in the Delhi Riots cases. .The Court was hearing a plea moved by the three accused protesting the failure to release them from judicial custody despite being granted bail on Tuesday citing absence of verification details..[BREAKING] Delhi Court defers order on release of Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha due to "heavy board"; order at 11 tomorrow."We are going to direct counsel for the parties to appear before the trial court at 12 noon. You can make your submissions, and the court will take a decision", the High Court said..The Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Bhambhani went on to observe,."We are not going to monitor the proceedings before the trial court. We can only say that it has to deal with the matter with promptitude. Our order has to be implemented, there cannot be two views on that.".The interim order passed in the morning directs that the Trial Court hear the matter at 12 noon. Thereafter, the High Court will take up the matter at 3.30 pm.."After trial court hears the matter, we can hear the matter and get an update on what happened", the Court said..The hearing today saw Justice Bhambhani raise eyebrows over certain details sought as part of the verification process."You have sought time to verify Aadhaar numbers? Where does Aadhaar number come into the picture? Do you follow this process in other cases?", he asked. ."In case of sureties, there is a Supreme Court order that says so", the Special Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad informed. .Appearing for the accused, advocate Adit Pujari countered,"Order was reserved in both our applications. Every time, there is shifting of goalposts. They came to our house for verification twice, but they didn't do their job."."Let the trial court pass an order. These are issues that are germane to the trial court", the High Court eventually opined, before clarifying that it will hear the matter again at 3.30 pm. . "Our direction is to effect release forthwith ... Are these issues we can interfere with, before the trial court takes a view on your application? ... It has to be done in a reasonable time, and we have already said that", the Court orally observed during the hearing. .Advocate Siddarth Aggarwal informed the Court that the Delhi Police had sought six days time to verify the addresses and sureties of the accused. However, he added,"Even if the court has to grant time for verification, it can be done after they are released.".The Bench, in turn, observed, "If trial court passes an order, this application is infructuous. At the most, we can say that the proceedings should be conducted expeditiously."."By not deciding my application, the trial court has taken a view", Aggarwal argued.."Has trial court taken up these matters?" the Court asked."Trial court is taking up regular matters", advocate Adit Pujari responded, for the accused. .Whereas the Court queried whether it can interfere in these matters before the Trial Court decides on pending application within a reasonable time, Aggarwal contended, "By not taking up the case, the trial court has denied me of my rights. After securing bail, it says it does not have time to do it? Your Lordships' judgment is not being implemented ... I don't wish to impute motives, but the trial court has allowed the application by not taking it up:".Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad countered the allegations made and asserted that the State is duly following the Court's orders. ."Trial court cannot be lax about this, once we pass an order", the High Court remarked. ."During verification, certain facts came up that we will bring before the trial court... We have strong reasons to believe that the addresses have glaring discrepancies", SPP Prasad responded.."Even if today the trial court passes an order at 4, it will take time to reach, and the same delay will occur. We are asking that it be sent by email", advocate Pujari submitted. .In a later part of the hearing, the Bench also asked the SPP, "Sureties are local, accused have been in your custody for over a year, investigation is complete. What more do you want?" .SPP Prasad, however, informed that there are certain discrepancies with respect to the permanent address of Asif Iqbal Sinh, which the trial court ought to decide on. ."The trial court shall hear the matter with promptitude and we will take it up thereafter ... If we have created any problems for you, we can solve those for you", the Court went on to remark, before wrapping up the hearing for the time-being. .The three accused were not released from custody on Tuesday citing the lack of verification of their addresses and sureties..On Tuesday, Additional Sessions Judge at Karkardooma Courts Revinder Bedi asked the police to submit the verification details as soon as possible, and preferably by Wednesday afternoon..On Wednesday, the Delhi Police sought more time to submit the details. Later in the day, the lower court deferred passing orders in the matter until Thursday citing a heavy board in the evening, around 6 pm. .In the meanwhile, the Delhi Police has moved a plea in the Supreme Court challenging the grant of bail to the three by the High Court.
