Former Congress Coucillor and UAPA accused Ishrat Jahan was denied interim bail by additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat in Karkardooma court on 26 November under FIR 59, the case that is investigating the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 February communal violence where 53 people died.
The court order read: “Considering the gravity of the offences including Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with which the applicant is charged, the discussion in the preceding paragraphs and the Jail Report, I do not deem it a fit case to grant interim bail to accused Ishrat Jahan.”
What Did Ishrat’s Lawyer Say While Arguing for Bail?
Ishrat Jahan’s advocates had argued for bail on the grounds of her spinal injury, high blood pressure and the spread of COVID-19 in Delhi’s Mandoli jail.
Citing a recent injury that Ishrat had, which was brought up in recent hearings by her and her sister Sarwer Jahan, the court order read, “It was submitted that around 15 days back, the applicant fel inside the bathroom while she was in Jail due to slippery floor and has suffered spine injuries.”
Her lawyer also said that the COVID-19 situation inside the jail was precarious and that Ishrat has anxiety issues. On these grounds, they moved interim bail for two months.
What Did Prosecution Arguing Against Bail Say?
Since Ishrat Jahan has been charged under the anti-terror law called UAPA, sub clause 5 of Section 43 (D) of the UAPA was brought up in court.
It was further argued that Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 put an embargo at the stage of consideration of bail.
Sub-clause 5 of Section 43D of the UA(P) Act reads as follows:- (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release; “Provided that 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.
Regarding medical grounds of her spine injury and high blood pressure, the prosecution argued that according to the latest medical prescription there was no urgent medical requirement for Ishrat. “She was managing with injectibles on advice oral medicines and discharge And no advice any investigation," the prescription read.
Concerns regarding COVID-19 were addressed in court filed by the Jail Superintendent who said ‘all necessary precautionary measures related to Covid-19’ were being taken.
It was also added that Ishrat had been tested twice for COVID-19, and was tested negative both times. That her inmates who tested positive have been kept in isolation.
“Thus, in terms of the medical ailments agitated by the applicant and the report of the Jail Superintendent, the court does not find any cogent reason for enlarging the applicant on interim bail,” the order read.
The last time Ishrat was granted bail was from 10 June to 19 June for her wedding, which was scheduled for 12 June.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)