Sri Vijaya Puram, October 9: The bail protection granted to Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council (SVPMC) councillor Aziz-Ur-Rehman, popularly known as Niyamat, has been extended after the Andaman and Nicobar Administration sought further time from the Supreme Court to file its reply to his bail petition.
The matter came up before the Supreme Court on Thursday, with advocate K. Pandey, appearing for complainant Sher Singh, and counsel representing the Andaman and Nicobar Administration appearing before the Court. Advocate Deep Kabir, who is representing Aziz-Ur-Rehman, did not appear during Thursday’s proceedings.
The Administration sought additional time to file its reply. The Court accordingly granted further time and fixed November 19, 2026 for the Administration to place its response on record. With the reply still pending, Aziz-Ur-Rehman’s bail protection has been extended.
The latest proceedings follow the Supreme Court’s August 4 hearing, when the Court had stayed, for the time being, the operation of the Calcutta High Court order cancelling Aziz-Ur-Rehman’s anticipatory and regular bail. The Supreme Court had then directed the respondents to file their replies.
The Administration has now sought further time to respond, with the proceedings indicating that its reply has not yet been filed despite the matter having been pending for around three months.
The case concerns allegations that Aziz-Ur-Rehman made derogatory and caste-based remarks against members of the Valmiki community following a local dispute in Sri Vijaya Puram. Based on a complaint lodged by Sher Singh and others, Aberdeen Police registered a case under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The matter had earlier reached the Calcutta High Court after the Sessions Court granted relief to the councillor. In its July 28 order, the High Court cancelled the anticipatory and subsequent regular bail granted to Aziz-Ur-Rehman and directed him to surrender before the competent court within seven working days.
The High Court had observed that the Sessions Court had not adequately considered witness statements and other material collected during the investigation before granting bail. It also held that prima facie material existed in relation to offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Aziz-Ur-Rehman subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision. During the August 4 hearing, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the High Court order and called for replies from the respondents, providing interim protection to the councillor.
With the Administration yet to file its response, the Supreme Court has now granted further time until November 19. The extension of bail protection means the High Court’s direction requiring Aziz-Ur-Rehman to surrender remains in abeyance for the time being, pending further proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The case will now come up again after the Administration files its reply, while the response of the complainant’s side will also form part of the proceedings.
