GK Top NewsLatest NewsWorldKashmir
Business | news
EducationSportsPhotosVideosToday's Paper

Delhi High Court Judge recuses from hearing NIA appeal seeking death penalty for Yasin Malik

The court ordered listing of the case before a different bench on August 9
02:20 PM Jul 11, 2024 IST | GK Web Desk
Delhi High Court Judge recuses from hearing NIA appeal seeking death penalty for Yasin Malik --- File Photo
Advertisement

Srinagar, July 11: A Delhi High Court Judge on Thursday recused himself form hearing National Investigation Agency (NIA)’s appeal seeking death penalty for jailed separatist leader Yasin Malik.

The case registered under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was listed today before Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma. However after Justice Sharma recused from the matter, the court ordered listing of the case before a different bench on August 9, Bar and Bench reported.

Advertisement

Pertinently, Justice Sharma recently also had recused from hearing bail pleas related to the 2020 Delhi riots.

The bench of Justice Singh and Justice Sharma was recently constituted after a change in roster at the High Court.

Advertisement

NIA has appealed against a trial court order awarding life imprisonment to Malik, who had pleaded guilty in the case under Section 120B, 121, 121A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13 and 15 of UAPA read with 120B of the IPC besides Sections 17, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA.

In a detailed judgment, the special NIA Court in May 2022 observed that Malik betrayed the good intentions of the government by choosing the violent path.

The judge had also rejected Malik's argument that he had become a Gandhian after 1994.

The NIA had demanded capital punishment for Malik before the trial court as well. However, the prayer was refused by the trial court stating that death penalty should be awarded only in exceptional cases "where the crime by its nature shocks the collective consciousness of the society".

The NIA then moved the present appeal before the High Court.

Advertisement