2020 Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case: Court Modifies Bail Condition Of Ex-Cong Councillor

In a big relief to former Congress councillor and lawyer Ishrat Jahan the Delhi court has recently modified her bail condition in the case involving larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi communal riots and allowed her to move across the country with the prior permission of the court.

Earlier, she was barred from leaving the national capital region without the court’s permission in advance.

Jahan, along with several others, has been booked under anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for allegedly being one of the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

In March 2022, a special court granted bail to Jahan, saying her role in the case, “prima facie”, persuaded it to extend her the relief despite the embargoes contained in the law.

The Delhi Police’s appeal against the relief is pending in the Delhi High Court.

In an order passed on last Friday, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai noted that the predecessor court imposed the condition that Jahan shall not leave the national capital territory which was in December 2022 modified to the extent of not leaving the National Capital Region without intimating the court.

The judge noted, “It is now submitted that the applicant (Jahan) is a practicing advocate and the condition imposed by the court is restraining her movement to do the law practice beyond the NCR.”

He noted Jahan’s submission that after being granted bail, she had not breached any of the conditions imposed by the court.

The judge stated, “Considering the fact that since the grant of bail, the investigating agency or the prosecution has not brought any fact to the notice of the court that the applicant has breached any condition of bail, the court deems it just and appropriate to modify the condition as prayed by the applicant.”

The court, while modifying the condition said she will not leave India without prior permission of the court, nor would she indulge in any criminal activity.

The prosecution opposed her application, saying the court had already given her “reasonable liberty”.

However, the judge granted her the relief.