The bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani said that save for "mere grandiloquence" contained in the chargesheet to make a case for UAPA, there is a "complete lack of any specific, particularised, factual allegations" that would merit UAPA charges.
The court called the allegations in the chargesheet against the three activist-students as "superfluous verbiage, hyperbole and stretched inferences".
In fact, upon a closer scrutiny of the submissions made on behalf of the State, we find that the submissions are based upon inferences drawn by the prosecuting agency and not upon factual allegations."
In Kalita's judgement too, the court observed that shorn-off the superfluous verbiage, hyperbole and the stretched inferences drawn from them by the prosecuting agency, the factual allegations made against the accused "do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence under sections of the UAPA".
"The state cannot thwart grant of bail merely by confusing issues," the bench noted while granting her the relief.
Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.
Stay updated with all the Delhi Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.