Delhi HC Judge recuses from hearing bail plea of UAPA accused Manzer Imam

"In all the bans imposed on the organizations at that time, I was the Senior Counsel for the Government, so I can't hear the matter," Justice Mridul said

Delhi, court, Delhi high court
IANS New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Jan 10 2023 | 3:00 PM IST

Justice Siddharth Mridul of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday recused from hearing the plea moved by Manzer Imam, a purported Indian Mujahideen operative.

Imam is booked under anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

"In all the bans imposed on the organizations at that time, I was the Senior Counsel for the Government, so I can't hear the matter," Justice Mridul said.

The matter is listed for hearing on January 13 before another bench.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed a case against Imam in August 2013 stating that he and others conspired to commit terrorist activities and made plans to target important locations in the nation.

Imam recently received a bail denial from the trial court. In October last year, a single judge requested that his bail application be heard and decided by the special court within 75 days.

"The Special Court will hear and dispose of the bail application of the applicant within 75 days from the date of this order," the court had ordered.

Justice Mridul acknowledged his difficulty in hearing the appeal when Imam's counsel said that the accused had been in detention for nine years and that the charges against him had been re-filed. He had further stated that there are 369 witnesses, and many of them are yet to be examined.

"In some of the bans imposed on SIMI (Students' Islamic Movement of India)... for a period of two years I was a senior counsel for the government. Would I hear this matter?...There is a difficulty," said Justice Mridul.

However, on November 28, Additional Sessions Judge Shailender Malik ruled that the trial's delay in this case could not be used as a defence to grant bail.

The court had denied Imam's request for bail but stated that there was sufficient proof to conclude that his accusation was true. Because the trial was taking so long, Imam had asked for bail.

The FIR in which Imam is an accused invokes Section 17, 18, 18B and 20 of UAPA and Section 121A and 123 of Indian Penal Code.

--IANS

spr/dpb

 

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Quarterly Starter

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

Save 46%

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online

  • Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Delhi High CourtIndian MujahideenIndian Mujahideen terrorist

First Published: Jan 10 2023 | 3:00 PM IST

Next Story