Ishrat Jahan, a key figure in the Delhi Riots case, has been granted permission by a Delhi court to practice law outside the capital. This decision came as the court modified her bail condition, considering no breaches since her bail was granted.
NEW DELHI: On Friday (12th April): Former Congress councillor and lawyer Ishrat Jahan, an accused in the Delhi Riots case, has received permission from a Delhi court to practice law outside the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. The court granted her this relief after she filed a plea, citing that her bail conditions restricted her professional activities beyond the NCR jurisdiction.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Demands Specifics on Sharjeel Imam’s Alleged Role in Delhi Riots
Ishrat Jahan was granted bail on March 14, 2022, with the condition that she must not leave the NCR without prior court permission. However, she sought to expand her legal practice beyond Delhi and argued that this condition hindered her professional growth.
Advocates Aadil Singh Boparai and Srishti Khanna presented her case before Special Judge Sameer Bajpai. They highlighted that Jahan, a practicing advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, had not violated any bail conditions and always adhered to court orders.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Deliberates on Bail for 2020 Delhi Riot Accused
The court noted that
since granting bail, there has been no evidence presented by the investigating agency or prosecution indicating any breach of bail conditions by the applicant. Therefore, the court deems it fair and suitable to modify the condition as requested by the applicant.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad and State Representative Advocates Chanya Jaitley and Ninaz Baldawala, who argued against granting further relief based on Jahan’s past conduct.
Ishrat Jahan was arrested in March 2020 in connection with the Delhi Riots case, involving allegations under various laws including the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Case Title: Ishrat Jhan v. State
