SC Rejects Bail To Accused; Directs Karnataka Govt To Set Up More UAPA Courts For Speedy Trial

The Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday granted interim protection to AAP MLA-elect Amanatullah Khan, shielding him from any coercive action until February 24. The court also directed him to cooperate with the investigation.

Case Background and Allegations

An FIR was registered against Khan for allegedly obstructing a Delhi Police Crime Branch team attempting to arrest Shavej Khan, who had been declared a Proclaimed Offender (PO) in a 2018 case filed at Jamia Nagar police station.

Khan then moved the Rouse Avenue Court for anticipatory bail. While hearing his plea, Special Judge Jitendra Singh granted him interim protection and ordered that any police interrogation be conducted under CCTV surveillance. The court also denied the police’s request to bar Khan from entering the area and sought a formal response from Delhi Police regarding his bail application.

Disputed Legal Status of Shavej Khan

Khan’s legal counsel, Rajat Bhardwaj, argued that Shavej Khan was not a Proclaimed Offender at the time of the incident on February 10. He stated that Shavej had already been granted anticipatory bail on July 30, 2018, had joined the investigation on July 19, 2018, and was never charge-sheeted. He also pointed out that Shavej had been acquitted in a previous attempt-to-murder case.

The court summoned the Investigating Officer (IO) to clarify whether Shavej was still legally considered a PO and why the police attempted to arrest someone who had been granted bail years ago.

Court Questions Police Actions

During the proceedings, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava acknowledged that the charge sheet had been prepared on July 10, 2018, sent for review, and filed on July 20, 2018. However, Shavej Khan remained listed as a PO in official records.

The judge challenged this, asking, “If he was already on anticipatory bail, how was the police’s attempt to arrest him justified? If the arrest wasn’t valid, how was it obstructed?”

The court also questioned whether a supplementary charge sheet had been filed to update Shavej’s legal status, criticizing the police for failing to inform the court about his bail.

Possible Police Misconduct and Inquiry

The prosecution claimed the confusion was due to a clerical error, but the court suggested a departmental inquiry, stating:
“The police’s actions raise serious concerns. If Shavej was not actually a Proclaimed Offender, why did they attempt to arrest him?”

The prosecution further admitted that both the police and the court had been misled about Shavej’s status. The judge warned that if the police acted unlawfully, the entire Crime Branch team involved could face legal action.

Missing CCTV Footage Raises Doubts

The court asked whether CCTV footage of the incident was available. However, the prosecution claimed that a power failure prevented any recording. The judge then asked whether any police officer had recorded the incident on a mobile phone, but the prosecution responded that the police party had been attacked and was unable to do so.

The SHO of Jamia Nagar was also questioned about why he failed to inform the Investigating Officer about Shavej’s legal status. He replied that the case was being handled by the Crime Branch, and the original IO had been transferred.

The court has summoned Investigating Officer Jai Bhagwan for further clarification and directed the prosecution to verify all records before the next hearing on February 24.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International