The Delhi High Court Friday sought response of the AAP authorities and police on appeals by JNU college students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita towards the dismissal of their bail pleas by a trial courtroom in a UAPA case associated to the north-east Delhi riots final yr.
A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and A J Bhambhani issued discover to the Delhi authorities and police and sought their stand on the 2 appeals by March 10, the subsequent date of listening to.
Advocate Adit S Pujari, showing for the 2 college students, argued earlier than the bench that the investigation within the case was “tainted”.
Narwal and Kalita, who’re additionally members of Pinjra Tod (break the cage) group, had been arrested final yr in May in reference to the communal riots in north-east Delhi and are in judicial custody.
They had been arrested by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police and booked underneath varied sections of the Indian Penal Code together with rioting, illegal meeting and try to homicide.
They have additionally been booked underneath the stringent anti-terror legislation – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a separate case associated to the communal violence in north-east Delhi in February final yr, for allegedly being a part of a “premeditated conspiracy” within the riots.
Communal clashes had damaged out in north-east Delhi on February 24, 2020 after violence between the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) supporters and protesters spiralled uncontrolled leaving at the least 53 folks useless and round 200 injured.
In all, 4 instances have been registered towards Kalita, together with in relation to the northeast Delhi riots and violence in previous Delhi’s Daryaganj space throughout protests towards the CAA in December 2019.
Narwal is accused in three instances.
Both of them have been granted bail within the different instances apart from the one underneath UAPA.
The trial courtroom had on January 28 dismissed their bail pleas saying the allegations towards them had been prima facie true and provisions of anti-terror legislation have been rightly invoked within the current case.
