Delhi High Court: Rajiv Shakhder, J. while addressing the bail application of Safoora Zargar granted the same while laying down certain conditions.
Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, made the following statement:
“Without in any manner conceding to the factual assertions and legal submission made by the petitioner and without in any manner diluting the contents and submissions made in the reply filed thereto and without making it a precedent either in on- going investigations or any other investigation(s), purely on humanitarian ground, the prosecution agrees to the petitioner being released on regular bail…”
Thus, while stating the above, SG stated that the petitioner can be release on bail, subject to certain conditions being imposed by the Court.
Bench while granting bail laid down certain conditions:
- She cannot leave NCT of Delhi
- Cannot be involved in any of the activities that would hamper the ongoing investigation.
- Once in 15 days, she has to be in touch with the investigation officer through phone.
- Personal Bond of Rs 10, 000 to be furnished with a surety.
- In case the petitioner is required to leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi, she will seek permission from the concerned Court.
Bench made it clear that the present order will not be cited as a precedent. [Safoora Zargar v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 664 , decided on 23-06-2020]
Background
She was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for her involvement in the Delhi Riots.
Safoora Zargar, who was accused of giving inflammatory speeches, thereby inciting riots and violence in North East Delhi and was arrested and taken into custody under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Patiala House Verdict
Patiala House Court, New Delhi: While deciding the instant bail application of student activist Safoora Zargar, who was accused of giving inflammatory speeches, thereby inciting riots and violence in North East Delhi and was arrested and taken into custody under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter UAPA], Dharmendar Rana, ASJ, refused to grant her the bail. Furthermore, pointing out that although no direct violence is attributable to the applicant/ accused, still she cannot shy away from her liabilities.
The Court said that, “When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark bit too far and spread the fire”. However, taking note of the accused/ applicant’s pregnancy, he requested the Jail Superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and assistance to her.
