The Delhi High Court on Thursday vacated its order of staying the bail granted to Faisal Farooq, principal of Rajdhani Public School, due to the unresolved arguments between the Centre and the government regarding the representation of police in a riot case.
Justice Suresh Kait remarked that the controversy over who will represent Delhi Police in the case has been going on since June 22, and since it is likely to continue, the accused will be prejudiced if the order staying his bail was not vacated.
On June 22, the court had stayed the bail granted to Mr. Faisal by a trial court here following an appeal made by the police. Justice Kait has called for a written submission from both the Centre and the State government over who will represent the police and posted the case for further hearing on July 22.
During the day-long hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi argued that the series of verdicts from the Supreme Court and the court on the power tussle would not be applicable in the present case.
The ASG argued that the judgments dealt with the power of the Delhi government to appoint public prosecutor under the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the Unlawful Assembly Prevention Act (UAPA) invoked in many of the riots cases, the ASG said the Central government was entitled to a special counsel to represent the police.
Delhi government’s senior Standing Counsel Rahul Mehra, on the other hand, argued that the previous judgments of the top court and the High Court had clarified that the Lieutenant-Governor cannot appoint special prosecutors without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Mehra argued that the Delhi Police was not an ‘ordinary client’ who could choose whom to hire to represent it. “Investigation and the prosecution cannot be hand in gloves. The role of the prosecutor is of an officer of the court. There are checks and balances,” Mr Mehra argued.
Mr. Farooq was arrested in connection with a north-east Delhi riots case and have been charged under sections ranging from 307 (attempt to murder), 395 (dacoity), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance) amongst others.
The police have challenged the trial court’s June 20 order granting bail to Mr. Farooq on the grounds that it was prima facie not established that he was present at the spot at the time of the incident.
In the order, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav had pointed out that Mr.s Farooq’s presence has not been recorded in any of the CCTV footage installed at Rajdhani Public School.
