JNU row: Delhi HC adjourns hearing on Kanhaiya's bail plea till Feb 29

Delhi Police today told the Delhi High Court that further custodial interrogation of JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar is required in the wake of the arrest of two other accused students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya in the sedition case.

As soon as the hearing on Kanhaiya's bail plea commenced before Justice Pratibha Rani, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta told the court that police have a statutory right to take police custody of an accused for 15 days and due to new developments Kanhaiya's custodial remand is necessary.

"After yesterday's development, two of the accused have surrendered and are in safe custody. Their remand is yet to be taken. In the backdrop of the new development and as per our statutory right of 15 days police custody of an accused, we will be seeking remand of Kanhaiya Kumar to confront him with Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya," Mehta submitted.

The ASG said, "Our right cannot be curtailed and the present bail petition be deferred." However, during the hearing, when the court was informed about violence at Patiala House court complex during Kanhaiya's remand proceedings, the bench observed, "We have to ensure that no one suffers even a scratch this time. The Registrar of the Delhi High Court and the police should ensure that no ruckus, as happened in the past, should take place while the accused are being produced."

Then Mehta told the court to defer the bail petition in wake of the new development.The bench has now fixed February 29 for further hearing on the bail plea. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Kanhaiya, contended that as per the status report filed by Delhi Police, in pursuance to the court's direction yesterday, there was no evidence of any anti-India slogans being raised by his client.

"I would like to tell the court that in the light of the status report filed by the police, there is no evidence of anti-India slogans raised by Kanhaiya. So he should be granted bail," Sibal said. Mehta, however, said that as per the new circumstances and evidence which have emerged, Kanhaiya is required to be confronted with the two arrested accused.

Kanhaiya, who was arrested on February 12, was in police custody till February 17



when he was remanded in judicial custody till March 2 amidst violence at the court premises during the remand proceedings. 

In its status report, police have said that besides the video footage in which the accused are allegedly raising anti-india slogans, they have other evidence against Kanhaiya as well.

In the status report, police opposed Kanhaiya's bail plea, saying if released at this stage, he may influence witnesses as the investigation is at an initial stage and statements of witnesses are being recorded. It said that problem may arise with regard to law and order situation if the accused is granted bail.

Besides these, the police mentioned 30 anti-India slogans which were allegedly raised by the accused and said that these slogans were against the country.

Delhi Police Commissioner B S Bassi, who had last week said that police would not object if Kanhaiya applied for bail, had yesterday justified changing its stand of opposing the bail plea in the high court, saying the circumstances have changed.

Bassi had said Kanhaiya showed repentance on his part when he issued an appeal on the day he was produced before a court but later denied having issued any such appeal and made certain allegations which were "false".

"We have reasonable apprehension that if he (Kanhaiya) comes out on bail, he is bound to impact the investigation and influence witnesses. He is also likely to indulge in activities that are violative of penal laws. That is why we have opposed grant of bail to Kanhaiya and shall oppose it further too," Bassi had said.

The high court had yesterday posted the matter for today while asking the police to submit a status report of the probe in the case limited to the extent of bail only.

Kanhaiya had moved his bail plea in the high court following a direction of the Supreme Court which had refused to hear it, saying it will set a "dangerous precedent".

In his petition, Kanhaiya has claimed he was "falsely implicated" and he had not raised any anti-national slogan.

The JNUSU leader has claimed that he was wrongly arrested on the basis of an FIR which was devoid of evidence to book him under such a serious charge.