New Delhi, Feb 13 : In view of Delhi Police challenging Saket court's February 4 order discharging 11 accused, including Sharjeel Imam in a 2019 Jamia violence case, the High Court on Monday said that there will be no influence on the further investigation or trial of the remaining accused due to the trial court's order. "Since further investigation will be carried out, observations made against the investigating agency will not affect either further investigation or trial of any accused," a single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said while she also issued notice on the police's revision petition. Justice Sharma while listing the matter to continue on March 16, granted liberty to police and respondents to file written submissions and relevant case laws in the matter. Representing Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain said that it is only through trial that it would be fair to decide if the accused discharged in order dated February 4, were only curious bystanders and did not have any role in violence. He argued: "Whether their role in part of protest was silent, peaceful or violent will emerge in trial. Or will it be pre judged at the stage of charge?" Criticising trial court's observations regarding the court's duty to uphold the right to dissent in order discharging former JNU student and activist Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha and nine others, ASG said there is no aspect of dissent involved in this matter but is a simple question of an unlawful assembly turning violent. "All this is good for a seminar or lectures," he said. Asking the court to issue notice, the ASG demanded before the court to pass an interim order saying that trial court's order should not affect the ongoing trial against against Mohd Ilyas as the court had found sufficient evidence to frame charges against him, further investigation in the FIR and further filing of supplementary charge sheet. He said: "My interim request is to stay observations. Clarification is necessary, otherwise without that these observations will continue to haunt me. Your lordships may clarify that investigation and further charge sheets will remain uninfluenced. And that this order may not be relied on in any proceedings." Claiming ASG's submission to be false, appearing for Tanha, Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran said: "It is completely incorrect to suggest that the third supplementary charge sheet was not considered at all." Tanha's counsel further argued that the trial court has considered the law on "mere presence" in protests and there is no error in observations made by the trial court. "Those observations are necessary for the kind of prosecution this case has been," Shankaran said. She added: "As regards the stay or partial stay, they can do further investigation. Mohd Iliyas may be impleaded in the first instance, he has the right to be heard. This is revisional jurisdiction." While agreeing to the ASG's submissions, the court said that it will not expunge the remarks at this stage. Justice Sharma said: "I cannot interfere in the investigation. I am calling for TCR in digitised form. I don't need a case diary because I am hearing it against discharge, not acquittal. I am only going to say that observations made against the investigating agency will not influence them at all. I am not expunging remarks right now." The ASG also argued regarding Additional Sessions Judge of Saket Court Complex, Arul Verma's observations, who had pulled up police and said the police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind the commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope in these 11 accused as 'scapegoats'. Incidents of violence at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019, erupted after a clash between the police and people protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Verma said that the protesters were surely there in large numbers and it cannot be denied that some anti-social elements within the crowd created an environment of disruption. However, the moot question remains as to whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem, Verma asked. ASJ Verma had framed charges of unlawful assembly and rioting against Mohd. Ilyas. "Photographs of Mohd Ilyas have been clearly shown in a newspaper, hurling a burning tyre, an overt act has been ascribed to him, and he has been duly identified by police witnesses," he had noted. /IANS