New Delhi [India], August 7 : Delhi High court on Wednesday sought response from Delhi Police on bail plea of Dr Ishtiyaque Ahmad of Ranchi who is an accused in AQIS Jharkhand Training Module case. He is alleged leader of the module.
He is seeking regular on the ground that he is custody since August 2024 and sanction to prosecute him under UAPA has not been obtained.
The High court said, "Issues of liberty of an individual must not be taken in such casual manner."
Justice Girish Kathpalia issued notice to Delhi police special cell and sought response on the bail plea.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Amit Ahlawat accepted notice and sought two weeks time to file status report alongwith an affidavit duly signed by investigation officer ACP Rahul.
The Matter has been listed for hearing on October 8.
The petitioner is an accused in an case FIR registered by special cell in 2024 for offence under Section 61 BNS, Sections 16, 17, 18, 18 A, 18 B of UAPA, Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 Arms Act.
Senior advocate Rajdipa Behura alongwith Advocate Philomon Kani appeared for Ishtiyaque Ahmad. She argued that he was arrested in August 2024, but till date sanction under UAPA has not been obtained.
Further, she contended on instructions that the persons who allegedly gave statements implicating the accused have approached the concerned Court in Ranchi, alleging that they were forced by the police to make such incriminating statements against the accused/applicant.
During the hearing, the bench took serious view of the fact that IO/ACP Rahul was not present. The court said that despite the seriousness of the issue involved, Investigating Officer/ACP Rahul has not appeared to assist the prosecutor.
"It has been repeatedly brought to the notice of higher authorities that issues of liberty of an individual must not be taken in such casual manner," justice Kathpalia said.
The court said that it has been repeatedly directed that in bail matters, the investigating officer should first brief the prosecutor prior to commencement of the hearing and should remain present with investigation file including case diaries at the time of hearing. But it seems that the directions are not being taken seriously.
The bench directed to send the copy of this order to all DCPs in Delhi with the directions to ensure strict adherence to the aforesaid.
His earlier bail plea was rejected by the trial court on April 24.
The trial court had observed, "Sanction under section 7 of Explosive Substances Act has already been filed but requisite sanction under section 45 of UAPA is still awaited as no authority/ committee has been constituted by Government of NCT of Delhi till date to conduct an independent review under UAPA and letter for granting prosecution sanction is still pending with GNCT of Delhi."
The court had emphasised that the investigating agency has already complied with all necessary steps to obtain requisite sanction under section 45 of UAPA before filing of the main charge-sheet and the investigating agency has no control over the working of the competent authority.
The trial court was of the considered view that the Sanction Order passed by the competent authority can be produced and placed on record even after the filing of the charge-sheet, the court held.
On February 17, 2025, police had filed a charge sheet against 8 accused person including Dr Ishtiyaque. The same is pending for Cognizance as Prosecution sanction under UAPA is awaited.