<p>The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on Friday a plea by Delhi Police against the June 15 order by the Delhi High Court granting bail to three student activists in a case of larger conspiracy related to the northeast Delhi riots last year.</p>.<p>The HC had ordered the release of Jamia Milia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, and two JNU scholars Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, saying prima facie no case was made against them in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian would take up on June 18 the special leave petition filed by the police.</p>.<p>In its plea filed on Wednesday, the police questioned the approach adopted by High Court, saying the three separate bail judgements, were without any foundation and appeared to be based more on the social media narrative than the evidence gathered and elaborated in the charge sheet. </p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/delhi-riots-student-activists-natasha-narwal-devangana-kalita-walk-out-of-tihar-jail-on-bail-998525.html" target="_blank">Delhi riots: Student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita walk out of Tihar jail on bail</a></strong></p>.<p>"The misdirection of the High Court is writ large from the observation that the present case was foisted in anxiety to suppress dissent," the police contended, adding this was "an insinuation, albeit unfounded and perverse," and was "beyond the purview of the bail petition". </p>.<p>In its appeal, the police said, "The High Court has not only conducted a mini-trial but has also recorded perverse finding which is contrary to the record and the arguments made during the hearing of the case." </p>.<p>"Unfortunately, the High Court has decided the case on a pre-conceived and a completely erroneous illusion, as if, the present case was a simpliciter case of protest by students," it added. </p>.<p>The February 2020 riots, triggered after a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, had claimed the lives of 53 people and left hundreds injured. All three were in jail for over one year.</p>.<p>The police claimed the High Court completely lost sight of the evidence and statements, which clearly made out "a sinister plot of mass-scale riots being hatched by the three accused along with other co-conspirators". </p>.<p>The police contended that the High Court's view that provisions of UAPA can only be applied to deal with matters of profound impact on the ‘defence of India’, nothing more and nothing less, was "an irrelevant consideration to grant bail to the accused".</p>.<p>“Secondly, it will have far-reaching consequences for cases investigated by NIA and other investigating agencies. The order is thus unsustainable in law and deserves to be stayed," the police said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on Friday a plea by Delhi Police against the June 15 order by the Delhi High Court granting bail to three student activists in a case of larger conspiracy related to the northeast Delhi riots last year.</p>.<p>The HC had ordered the release of Jamia Milia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, and two JNU scholars Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, saying prima facie no case was made against them in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian would take up on June 18 the special leave petition filed by the police.</p>.<p>In its plea filed on Wednesday, the police questioned the approach adopted by High Court, saying the three separate bail judgements, were without any foundation and appeared to be based more on the social media narrative than the evidence gathered and elaborated in the charge sheet. </p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/delhi-riots-student-activists-natasha-narwal-devangana-kalita-walk-out-of-tihar-jail-on-bail-998525.html" target="_blank">Delhi riots: Student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita walk out of Tihar jail on bail</a></strong></p>.<p>"The misdirection of the High Court is writ large from the observation that the present case was foisted in anxiety to suppress dissent," the police contended, adding this was "an insinuation, albeit unfounded and perverse," and was "beyond the purview of the bail petition". </p>.<p>In its appeal, the police said, "The High Court has not only conducted a mini-trial but has also recorded perverse finding which is contrary to the record and the arguments made during the hearing of the case." </p>.<p>"Unfortunately, the High Court has decided the case on a pre-conceived and a completely erroneous illusion, as if, the present case was a simpliciter case of protest by students," it added. </p>.<p>The February 2020 riots, triggered after a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, had claimed the lives of 53 people and left hundreds injured. All three were in jail for over one year.</p>.<p>The police claimed the High Court completely lost sight of the evidence and statements, which clearly made out "a sinister plot of mass-scale riots being hatched by the three accused along with other co-conspirators". </p>.<p>The police contended that the High Court's view that provisions of UAPA can only be applied to deal with matters of profound impact on the ‘defence of India’, nothing more and nothing less, was "an irrelevant consideration to grant bail to the accused".</p>.<p>“Secondly, it will have far-reaching consequences for cases investigated by NIA and other investigating agencies. The order is thus unsustainable in law and deserves to be stayed," the police said.</p>
