Live
- Paddy procurement made easy in AP
- Aim to design Tirumala as a planned model town: TTD EO
- Partymen, aam aadmi air grievances before Dy CM
- NTPC Green to set up projects worth 1.87 lakh cr in AP
- CS holds review meet on ‘Indira Mahila Shakti’ scheme
- KTR to participate in Deeksha Diwas on Nov 29
- First Telugu bureaucrat to become CAG of India
- Plea in HC to extend voting rights to teachers in Council polls; notices issued to govt
- Political heat rises over Adani indictment in AP
- Excise police arrest five, seize 1.1 kg ganja
'Something missing in remand order': HC seeks Delhi Police's reply on plea by NewsClick founder-editor
The Delhi High Court on Friday sought Delhi Police's response on pleas by NewsClick founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources head Amit Chakravarty challenging their arrest in a case lodged under the provisions of UAPA.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday sought Delhi Police's response on pleas by NewsClick founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources head Amit Chakravarty challenging their arrest in a case lodged under the provisions of UAPA.
Appearing for Purkayastha in the presence of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the arrest was illegal, and no ground of arrest was given to him, adding the trial court passed the remand order without hearing and considering Purkayastha's response to the remand application.
"They know that I'm the counsel but still they don't inform me. But they inform their counsel. The order was passed without my response," Sibal said.
Appearing through video conference for Delhi Police, Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta requested the matter to be heard on October 9 and sought time to file response.
However, Sibal took objection to the SGI's request and sought interim release if the matter has to be heard on October 9, saying that the Investigating Officer is present and the file was also with him, adding the matter can be argued now instead of Monday (October 9).
Mehta then said that he needs time to file his reply and pressed for October 9.
On Sibal seeking interim release, Justice Gedela said that the allegations are not of such nature which warrants immediate release.
He then asked SGI: "Mr. Mehta, tell us… The remand order, there appears to be something which is missing there... and the counsel was not heard."
The court also told Mehta that the grounds of arrest were not disclosed in the remand application.
"Apparently, in the remand application, you don't disclose the ground of arrest. Today, there is a Supreme Court judgement which is staring in the eye," the court said.
Putting an end to the hearing for the day, the court said that the matter would be heard first thing on October 9.
Notably, counsel Arshdeep Singh had earlier informed a Delhi court that a petition would be filed before the high court challenging the FIR and the arrests, highlighting that there was already an FIR with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), and the High Court was not informed about the current FIR.
The Special Cell of Delhi Police had arrested Purkayastha and Chakravarty on Tuesday, and the next day, they were sent to seven-day police custody by a Delhi court.
On Wednesday, the court had allowed them to meet their lawyer besides granting them a copy of the remand order.
Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur of the Patiala House Courts had on Thursday ordered that Purkayastha and Chakravarty be given the copy of the FIR registered against them.
She had allowed their applications, which were opposed by the Delhi Police saying they were premature.
Special Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava had said that the accused had to first approach the police commissioner, who would then form a committee regarding the same.
Shrivasatava had also cited a Supreme Court judgement saying that the accused had to follow the step-by-step procedure prescribed by the top court.
They could not "directly jump before the court", he added.
Singh had argued that they have the right to obtain the FIR copy.
