New Delhi, Jun 22: The Delhi Police Monday urged the Delhi High Court to grant them a day’s more time for seeking instructions on a plea by Jamia student Safoora Zargar, who was pregnant and arrested under the anti-terror law --UAPA--, seeking bail in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, allowed the request after Zargar’s counsel said she has no objection to it and listed the matter for Tuesday.
Zargar, M Phil student of Jamia Millia Islamia University, is more than four months pregnant.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, sought a day’s time to take instructions on the issue and said it will be in “larger interest” if he is given indulgence.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi also joined Mehta and said they are ready with the arguments on merits of the case but they do not intend to proceed on merits at this stage.
Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Zargar, said the woman is in a delicate state and is in a fairly advanced stage pregnancy and if the police need time to respond to the plea, she be granted interim bail for the time being.
The high court asked Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to come back with instructions on Tuesday.
The police has also filed a status report in response to the bail plea.
Jamia Coordination Committee member Zargar, who was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on April 10, has challenged in the high court the June 4 order of the trial court denying her bail in the case.
The hearing in the high court also witnessed exchange of words between Mehta, Lekhi on one side and Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra who objected the appearance of the two senior law officers on behalf of Delhi Police in the case.
Mehra contended that unlike another North East Delhi violence matter in which requisite approval was sought by the Delhi Police to be represented by a team of lawyers led by the Solicitor General, no such procedure was followed in this case.
"They know that my view in such cases will be more humanitarian and not as per their whims and fancies. I am not supposed to be the mouth piece of the Delhi Police, I am an officer of the court," he said.
Lekhi shot back "a client chooses the lawyer and a lawyer cannot impose himself on the client.
He said this controversy would deviate the court from the issue in hand and Mehra's objection can be kept aside in this case.
The high court concluded the hearing, asking the counsel for Delhi Police to sort out their battles by tomorrow.
The trial court, in its order, had said “when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”
It had said that during the course of investigation a larger conspiracy was discernible and if there was prima facie evidence of conspiracy, acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators, it is admissible against all.
The trial court had said that even if there was no direct act of violence attributable to the accused (Zargar), she cannot shy away from her liability under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
However, the trial court had asked the concerned jail superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and the assistance to Zargar.
The police had earlier claimed that Zargar allegedly blocked a road near Jaffrabad metro station during the anti-CAA protests and instigated people that led to the riots in the area.
It further claimed that she was allegedly part of the “premediated conspiracy” to incite communal riots in northeast Delhi in February.
Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.
Comments
Who is RAMA ?
Answer : he the king of ayodhya.
is he human being
Answer : yes.
how come an human being can become GOD.
my dear hindu brother, please understant the concept of GOD,
rama cannot save sita from kidnapping then how he will save you??
rama need army to capture ravana then how he will become GOD.
Rama born and died, so you think GOD also born & die.
if there is so many gods then there is no justic...same as indian political party one want to pull the leg of other to get power..
Who is GOD ?
The Most Concise Definition of God:
The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:
"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
What does Islam say about ‘god-men’?
India is often called the land of ‘god-men’. This is due to the abundance of so-called spiritual masters in India. Many of these ‘babas’ and ‘saints’ have a large following in many countries. Islam abhors deification of any human being. To understand the Islamic stand towards such pretenders to divinity, let us analyze one such ‘god-man’, Osho Rajneesh or RAMA.
Let us put this candidate, ‘Bhagwan’ Rajneesh, to the test of Surah Ikhlas, the touchstone of theology:
i) The first criterion is "Say, He is Allah, one and only". Is Rajneesh one and only? No! Rajneesh was one among the multitude of ‘spiritual teachers’ produced by India. Some disciples of Rajneesh might still hold that Rajneesh is one and only.
ii) The second criterion is, ‘Allah is absolute and eternal’. We know from Rajneesh’s biography that he was suffering from diabetes, asthma, and chronic backache. He alleged that the U.S. Government gave him slow poison in prison. Imagine Almighty God being poisoned! Rajneesh was thus, neither absolute nor eternal.
iii) The third criterion is ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten’. We know that Rajneesh was born in Jabalpur in India and had a mother as well as a father who later became his disciples.
God does not become a human being:
God does not take human form:
Some may argue that God does not become a human being but only takes a human form. If God only takes a human form but does not become a human being, He should not possess any human qualities. We know that all the ‘God-men’, have human qualities and failings. They have all the human needs such as the need to eat, sleep, etc.
The worship of God in human form is therefore a logical fallacy and should be abhorred in all its forms and manifestations.
That is the reason why the Qur’an speaks against all forms of anthropomorphism. The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:
"There is nothing whatever like unto Him."
GOD is beautiful, GOD is Merciful, GOD is Loving his creation based on his good deeds.
GOD want human being to live in this earth happly and cooperate each other in bad time.
one important thing GOD want that he want him to worship alone. he is supreme
dont add idol, photo, animal, stone, humans, sun, star etc.
all belong to HIM.
hope you will find the truth before you die!!!
Dear Advocate Sir,
Saying is not enough sir, All courts need concrete evedence to prove and to discharge the verdict.
Please provide the concrete evidence to get the verdict in favor.
We ask advocate Vaidyanathan to respect his post and constitution by not giving incorrect statement. We ask him the base he say that babri masjid was constructed by razing temple. Where is the proof. He is throwing ball in darkness. He is betraying his oath taken while receiving lawyer certificate that he will say truth only. Dear Vaidyanathan, please dont misguide the court and show the evidence. How about the home you are staying. What will be your response if I say that it was constructed demolishing church or gurudwara or masjid.
Add new comment