New Delhi: The Delhi Police has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court's decision to grant bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal in a Delhi Riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The bail is subject to the personal bond of Rs 50,000 and two local sureties. Conditions for bail include the three surrendering their passports and not indulging in activities that would hamper the case.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Grants Bail To Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita And Natasha Narwal In Delhi Riots Case
According to Bar & Bench, the high court while granting bail to Kalita and Narwal, observed that the State, in its anxiety to suppress dissent, blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity.
"We are constrained to say, that it appears, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the State has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity', if such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril," the order was quoted.
All three were arrested under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the Delhi riots case. Pinjra Tod activists Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal were arrested a year ago in the Delhi riots case. Last week, activists and various civil society groups came together to mark a year of the arrest of women's collective Pinjra Tod members.
The case pertains to the Delhi police probe into the "larger conspiracy" that led to the riots in the capital’s North-East area in February 2020. As per Delhi Police, following the Citizenship Amendement Act, Tanha, Kalita and Narwal, along with other accused persons, conspired to cause disruption of such an extent and such a magnitude at the national capital that would lead to disorderliness and disturbance of law and order at an unprecedented scale.
In the earlier judgment, pertaining to bail for Tanha, the Court discussed in detail the scope of the phrase ‘terrorist act’ under section 15 of UAPA and opined that the term cannot be used so lightly that it would "trivialise the extremely heinous offence of terrorist act".
The Court further opined, "We find ourselves unpersuaded and unconvinced with this submission since we find it is not founded on any specific factual allegation and we are of the view that the mere use of alarming and hyperbolic verbiage in the subject charge-sheet will not convince us otherwise. In fact, upon closer scrutiny of the submissions made on behalf of the State, we find that the submissions are based upon inferences drawn by the prosecuting agency and not upon factual allegations".