(Deepshikha Gautam, Intern Journalist) New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of the Delhi Police against the bail granted to Devangana Kalita, the activist of the Cage Break Campaign in the North East Delhi violence case. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the Delhi government (police), saying that a person who is influential cannot be the basis for rejecting bail.
In the Supreme Court, the Additional Solicitor General argued that Devangana was influential and could pressurize the witnesses and influence the evidence when the Supreme Court said that only bail has been granted. The court questioned how the evidence would be affected. The court rejected the application. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi government in the Supreme Court, said that Devangana Kalita is influential and she can influence the witnesses and the evidence may be affected. In such a situation, bail should be canceled. The Supreme Court then questioned whether a person, if influential, could be the basis for dismissal of bail.
The Supreme Court questioned how she (Devangana) could influence the evidence.
The Additional Solicitor General then stated that he was an influential person, so the evidence could be influenced. Then the court said that how someone can be an influential person can be the basis of denial of bail. The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the bail order. Delhi Police had lodged several FIRs against Devangana during the protest against CAA.
On September 1, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Devangana against which an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Delhi government. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court bail order. The Delhi High Court had on September 1 granted bail to Devangana on the condition of furnishing a surety of Rs 20,000 and furnishing surety of the same amount. The High Court had said that the accused should not, directly and indirectly, influence the witnesses in any way. Do not influence the evidence and do not go out of the country without the permission of the court.
About Post Author
