Bail Debate Intensifies: Activist's Call for Justice Amidst UAPA Charges

Activist Shifa-ur-Rehman has urged the Supreme Court to grant him bail in a UAPA case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, arguing that he was unjustly singled out and there’s no evidence under the anti-terror law. Advocates highlight issues of parity and evidence fabrication in related cases.

In a salient development, activist Shifa-ur-Rehman approached the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking bail in a UAPA case associated with the February 2020 riots in Delhi. Rehman contends he was unjustly targeted, arguing there’s no substantiating evidence under the anti-terror legislation.

Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Rehman, emphasized the lack of any incriminating witness accounts against Rehman, terming the allegations as devoid of merit. Stressing citizens’ right to peaceful protest, Khurshid argued for bail parity comparable to others who’ve been granted bail under similar circumstances.

As other advocates brought to light the broader context of acquittals and questionable evidence in related cases, Rehman’s plea adds to the growing discourse on justice and legal parity in riot-related prosecutions, with the hearing continuing on November 6.