COURTESY HT SEPT 5

Anti-Sikh riots: SC denies bail to Sajjan Kumar

HT Correspondent

letters@hindustantimes.com

New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a bail plea filed by former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, lodged in Tihar jail after being convicted in 2018 by the Delhi high court for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde said this was not an ordinary case, brushing aside concerns raised by Kumar’s lawyer regarding his health. “This is not a small case. We cannot grant you bail at all,” CJI Bobde remarked.

“The application for grant of bail is dismissed,” the order passed by the bench, which also comprised justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said.

The CJI, however, said he will list the appeal filed by Kumar challenging the high court verdict as soon as physical hearing restarts in Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is functioning through video conference since the Covid-19 pandemic broke out. It has been hearing only a limited number of cases -- mostly those which require urgent relief.

On May 13, the apex court declined an interim bail plea by Kumar, saying he does not require immediate hospitalisation. The court had called for a medical report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on March 4 after Kumar’s lawyers first raised health concerns.

The Delhi high court, in December 2018, convicted the 74-year-old politician and sentenced him to life imprisonment for his role in the 1984 massacre. The riots, targeting the Sikh community, broke out after the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh bodyguards.

In Delhi alone, 2,733 persons were killed. Kumar was convicted for murder (section 302 of Indian Penal Code), criminal conspiracy (section 120B), promoting enmity between religious groups (section 153A), destroying houses and places of worship using fire or explosive substances (section 436) and defiling places of worship (section 295).

Kumar’s counsel Vikas Singh submitted on Friday that his client has already spent 18 months in jail, and cited ill-health as a ground to release him, but the bench was firm.

Singh then pressed for interim bail for one month, saying this would allow Kumar to regain his health and weight. “I will abide by any condition Your Lordships impose. Your Lordships may at least grant interim bail for 1 month,” Singh said.

Senior counsel HS Phoolka, along with Jagjit Singh Chhabra, who were representing the riot victims, opposed the bail plea. Phoolka said that loss of weight was merely an excuse, and that Kumar is being given good care in jail.

The court, after taking note of the March 11 report of AllMS, remarked that Kumar’s weight has, in fact, increased, contrary to the claims made by him.

“We will put it (appeal) for final hearing as soon as the physical court starts,” CJI Bobde said while dismissing the plea.

The Supreme Court, on July 1, declined to grant bail to another 1984 riots convict, Mahender Singh Yadav who had approached the top court after he contracted the coronavirus disease.

Yadav, who was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Lok Nayak hospital in Delhi, argued that his relatives were not being allowed to visit, and he should be granted interim bail so as to enable his family members to take suitable steps in view of his deteriorating health.

The court rejected the plea saying a convict who is coronavirus positive and is in a hospital cannot get any special treatment or favours. Yadav died three days later.

“It is a well conceived order. The main plea taken by them was that he (Sajjan Kumar) has lost weight. But the medical report from AIIMS said he has gained weight. Judges appreciated this fact and said they cannot grant bail. The order will assuage the feelings of the victims who have been demanding justice for the last 35 years. It is a perfectly good order,” advocate Chabbra who appeared on behalf of riot victim Jagdish Kaur said. Kaur was a resident of Palam Colony in Delhi when riots broke out in which she lost her husband, sons and cousins.

“It is a right order. Though he has been convicted for murder, the criminal acts were in the nature of genocide and does not deserve bail. The court has rightly pointed out the emotive nature of the issue,” SC lawyer Philip Mathew.