Delhi riots: Delhi HC reserves order in plea by Ishrat Jahan challenging extension in time for investigation

Delhi High Court has reserved order in a plea challenging the order dated 15/06/20 passed by ASJ Dharmender Rana wherein the police was granted an extension of 60 days to complete investigation in cases pertaining to Delhi riots against Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan, legal news website LiveLaw.in has reported.

The judgment has been reserved by the Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.

Filed by Congress Counselor Ishrat Jahan, the petition argues that the said order is erroneous, bad in law, and is based on conjectures and surmises that go against the settled principles of law.

While citing it as a violation of her fundamental right, the petitioner has argued that the said order has been passed by the trial court to subvert and defeat the right of the petitioner to seek regular bail.

It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has satisfied none of the conditions enshrined under section 43(D)2(b) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in order to seek extension for investigation.

The petitioner has also submitted that the said order of the trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the investigation against her has already been completed and no specific reasons have been put forward by the police to seek extension for investigation against her.

'Merely the fact that the investigation is pending against the other accused, the same cannot be used as a reason to seek extension against her,' the petitioner has stated.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Rahul Mehra argued that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge squarely meets the requirements of section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA. He submitted that the said trial court perused the report filed by the Public Prosecutor, gave adequate opportunity to make arguments to both sides, and reproduced the special reasons required for extending the statutory period of investigation in his order.

'This exercise clearly indicates that the learned trial court completely satisfied himself of the reasons presented by the Public Prosecutor for seeking extension,' Mehra argued.

He further contended that there's nothing on record to suggest that the Public Prosecutor produced the application for seeking extension without applying his mind or perusing the report of the Investigating Officer.

After completing his arguments, Mehra informed the court that by an order dated July 17, Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi has appointed Amit Prasad as a Special Public Prosecutor in this matter, thereby, quashing the unilateral decision of the Lieutenant Governor.

Along with multiple sections of the UAPA, the petitioner is also accused of offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 124A, 302, 307, 353, 186, 212, 395, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 109, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.