The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on a plea challenging validity of bail granted to one of the accused in a case related to sensational beheading of a tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur in June 2022.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar decided to examine the petition filed by Yash Teli, son of Kanhaiya Lal, against the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, in September this year and also sought a response from Mohammed Javed.
Advocate Namit Saxena, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the role of this particular accused Javed is very serious as he gave information about the whereabouts and presence of the deceased Kanhaiya Lal to the assailants.
He submitted that the High Court was not correct in granting bail to him without delving deep into the gravity of the offence.
The plea said the murder was committed in a communally surcharged atmosphere across the country.
It claimed the prime accused had gathered themselves, prepared to commit the murder, collected weapons, did reccee, planted Javed to inform about whereabouts of the deceased. On the fateful date, they entered into the tailor shop disguising as customers, while the deceased was taking their size, the accused planted a camera, shouted communal slogans, attacked and murdered the deceased, the plea alleged.
The plea also claimed the accused used sharp weapons to commit the murder through repeated wounds and later shared a video of the act on social media, further issuing threats to behead others including the Prime Minister.
"That their objective was to fuel hatred, division and animosity among communities,” it claimed.
According to the NIA, the accused Javed worked in a shop nearby to Kanhaiya Lal’s shop and gave whereabouts at the time of crime to the assailants and also informed about location of the deceased.
The High Court granted bail to Javed on the grounds that prima facie there was not enough evidence to suggest that the appellant conspired with the two prime accused.
“The High Court failed to acknowledge that the special provisions regarding bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA Act apply to offences punishable under Chapter IV, including Sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA Act. That the special judge (NIA Cases) Jaipur, rightly determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie true,” said Teli’s plea.
The plea also said that the High Court had erroneously conducted a mini-trial and questioned the authenticity of the documents relied on by the Special Judge, Jaipur.