The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing on the bail plea of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid by a week.

A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan adjourned the matter to January 31 as they were available only till lunch.

Senior advocate CU Singh who appeared for Khalid told the Court that he was willing to go ahead with the case.

The bench, however, was getting up as the two judges had special bench matters listed after lunch.

The matter had last come up for hearing on January 10 when it got adjourned as senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Khalid and additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for Delhi Police made a joint request for adjournment due to their prior engagement as counsels in other matters.

The Court while posting the matter for Wednesday had observed that no further adjournment shall be granted in this case.

Also Read: ‘No social media posts, talking to press’: Delhi court to Umar Khalid in bail order

The Court had then observed, “An impression goes out that the Court is not taking up the matter.”

Khalid, a former scholar of JNU, was arrested by the Delhi Police on September 13, 2020, in connection with the Delhi riots case of 2020 and has been in prison since then.

Khalid was booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Besides seeking bail, Khalid has also filed a petition challenging the validity of Section 43D of (UAPA).

This provision places stringent conditions for grant of bail requiring the judge to conclude that the accusation against the accused is “prima facie true” based on the material submitted by the prosecution.

This petition will also be taken up on January 31 along with similar pleas challenging the same provision filed by persons charged under UAPA and collectively by Foundation of Media Professionals.

On the previous date of hearing, the petitioners informed the Court that Centre is yet to file response on validity of Section 43D.

The Court indicated that the Centre was free to file its response on this issue.

The response is awaited till date.