New Delhi, May 20 (IANS). Delhi’s Karkardooma Court has refused to grant interim bail to accused Umar Khalid, who is in judicial custody in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. Umar Khalid had sought interim bail of 15 days to attend his late maternal uncle’s house in Chehlum and take care of his ailing mother. Congress leader and former Finance Minister of the country P. Chidambaram has reacted to this.
Chidambaram, in a post on social media platform
He said the doctrine of Justice Krishna Iyer was established in 1977. Perhaps now it is found only in law books and is not considered applicable to real cases and real accused. The trial courts seem to think that “we will listen to the police and send the accused to jail and the accused should get bail from the High Court and the Supreme Court.”
He said that this is a step back from one’s duty. If the trial courts do their job and apply the law properly, the burden on the High Courts and the Supreme Court will be significantly reduced. And thousands of undertrial prisoners will not rot in jail without charges being framed, without trial and without punishment. It is rightly said that “the process itself becomes the punishment.”
Actually, Umar Khalid had told the court that his family consists of father, mother and five sisters, but his 71-year-old father is not in a position to take care of his mother. He also told that his four sisters are married and live at different places. In such a situation, being the eldest and only son of the family, he can take care of his mother before and after the surgery.
It was also said in the petition that Umar Khalid had already been granted interim bail several times. Every time he followed all the conditions of the court and surrendered on time.
The defense argued that the court had also granted interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed, Shifa Ur Rehman and Athar Khan on grounds such as family illness, so on the basis of parity, Umar Khalid should also get relief.
At the same time, the Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea saying that the accused is taking wrong advantage of the leniency of the court. The prosecution said that earlier bail was granted on grounds which were considered appropriate, but this time the reasons given are not sufficient.
–IANS
ms/