On Monday, November 11, the Supreme Court issued a notice in response to a plea challenging the bail granted to Mohammed Javed, an accused in the 2022 murder of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal. The notice was issued by a bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, based on a petition filed by Kanhaiya Lal’s son, Yash Teli.
Challenge to Rajasthan High Court’s Bail Decision
The petition disputes the Rajasthan High Court’s September 2024 decision to grant Javed bail, arguing that the court inadequately considered evidence suggesting Javed’s involvement. The High Court had reasoned that there was no prima facie evidence indicating Javed’s conspiracy with the primary accused.
Allegations of Communal Motive and Role in Crime
The plea states that the High Court failed to recognize the severity of the crime, as the accused allegedly used sharp weapons for repeated strikes, publicly shared a video of the act, and issued communal threats, including against the Prime Minister. The petition claims that Javed informed the main accused of Kanhaiya Lal’s location, aiming to provoke communal hatred and fear. Additionally, Javed allegedly shouted communal slogans during the murder, intensifying the tense national atmosphere.
Evidence of Involvement and Call for Stricter Bail Standards
The prosecution claims Javed met the primary accused at a tea stall the day before the murder, and call logs show several calls exchanged between them. The petition criticizes the High Court for not applying the stringent bail conditions under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and alleges it overlooked witness statements and other evidence, including Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. It references the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Investigating Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which underscores strict bail standards under the UAPA.
Request for Interim Relief and Final Judgment
The petition requests an interim stay on Javed’s bail to keep him in custody until the Supreme Court’s final judgment, asserting that the High Court’s scrutiny of evidence at the bail stage amounted to a “mini-trial” rather than a preliminary bail assessment.
High Court’s Basis for Bail
The High Court’s division bench, comprising Justice Praveer Bhatnagar and Justice Pankaj Bhandari, had granted Javed bail, citing his lack of prior criminal record, his age, and an extended two-year pre-trial incarceration. It noted insufficient evidence, including inconsistent cell tower data and lack of CCTV footage linking Javed to the alleged tea stall meeting with the main accused.
Case Details
The petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record Namit Saxena under Case No. Diary No. 51253-2024, titled Yash Teli v. NIA New Delhi and Ors.
Lawcutor 