NEW DELHI: Delhi Police today told the Delhi High Court that they are probing whether JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar has violated the conditions imposed on him after he was granted interim bail in the sedition case.
The police told Justice Suresh Kait that they “cannot comment” without verifying facts if Kanhaiya has violated the bail conditions and the investigation was in progress.
“As regards the allegations that he (Kanhaiya) has violated the bail conditions, this fact is disputed. Unless verified by us, we cannot comment on this. The investigation is going on,” special public prosecutor Shailendra Babbar, appearing for the Delhi Police, told the court.
The court was hearing arguments on separate pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to Kanhaiya and also for initiating perjury proceedings against him.
The petitioners have sought cancellation of Kanhaiya’s bail on the ground that his speech subsequent to his release from Tihar Jail here earlier this month was “anti-national” and thus he had violated the bail conditions.
Advocate R P Luthra, who appeared for one of the petitioners Prashant Kumar Umrao, claimed in court that after Kanhaiya was released from jail on interim bail, he violated the bail conditions by giving statements “challenging the integrity and sovereignty of the country”.
“The conditions so imposed on him (Kanhaiya) has been violated by him and he has breached the faith shown on him by the court. The concession granted to him should be taken away,” he said.
Countering his submissions, Delhi government’s senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra said that no grounds have been shown by the petitioners which warranted cancellation of interim bail granted to Kanhaiya at this stage.
“No single ground has been shown by the petitioners which satisfies that bail conditions have been violated by Kanhaiya,” Mehra said.
On March 16, the petitions for cancellation of Kanhaiya’s interim bail were referred to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court for allocating it before another bench, after objection was raised by one of the petitioners to the warning that they may have to bear the cost on dismissal of their pleas.
During the hearing, Luthra said, “this court ought to have taken a suo motu cognizance of the matter. I know judges are too busy to see the information which are available in public domain. I am presuming that whatever was there in public domain, the judges have not seen that.”
He said the court ought to have taken cognizance on the violation of bail conditions by Kanhaiya.
To this, the court said, “We are not supposed to see what is there on TV” and further added that the “state and central government are looking into it.”
Luthra, however, alleged that “they (Centre and state) are looking only for votes. They have failed.”
When the court asked Luthra to satisfy it about his locus in the matter, the counsel said he was the intervener before the Supreme Court in the case.
During the arguments which would continue on April 28, the Delhi government said the petitioners must tell the court about the grounds on which they are seeking cancellation of Kanhaiya’s interim bail.
Delhi Police also told the court that they have not preferred cancellation of interim bail.
The lawyer representing other petitioner Vineet Jindal, who has also sought cancellation of interim bail, argued that Kanhaiya has violated the bail conditions and he does not know as to why “the police is not taking any action against him.”
“The state is not doing anything for the reasons best known to them. May be they are under political pressure,” he said, adding, “Police do not wish to come to the court for cancellation of interim bail despite knowing the fact that Kanhaiya is violating the conditions.”
Besides seeking cancellation of interim bail, petitioner Umrao had moved another plea for initiation of perjury proceedings against Kanhaiya alleging that he had “deliberately and willfully filed a false affidavit” before the court while securing the relief.
Kanhaiya, who was granted six months interim bail on March 2, is facing sedition charge in connection with an event at JNU on February 9 where anti-national slogans were allegedly raised and Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru hailed as a ‘martyr’.–PTI
Thank You For Your Vote!
Sorry You have Already Voted!
