New Delhi, Nov 17 : The Delhi Police on Friday raised questions on the maintainability of the bail application of NewsClick Human Resources head Amit Chakravarty in a case lodged under the UAPA, but his counsel argued that he has only 0.09 per cent share in the organisation, and has no role in journalism or management. The matter came up for hearing as Special Judge Hardeep Kaur of Patiala House Courts had, on November 4, granted Delhi Police time to respond to the bail application. Accused under the provision of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Chakravarty's counsel argued that his client has not been made an accused in the First Information Report. He further said that since the charge sheet has not been filed, the court should look at the case diary to see whether the prima facie case against the accused is being proved right or not. The court will have to see what material is available on record against Chakravarty, he added. Opposing the bail application, Delhi Police said that the accused should file it under appropriate sections. "Investigation is still in its initial stage and no bail should be granted," it argued. The court has now adjourned the matter till November 24. Last month, NewsClick editor-founder Prabir Purkayastha and Chakravarty had moved court seeking release of electronic devices seized by the police and bail, respectively. On November 2, the court had sent Purkayastha and Chakravarty to judicial custody till December 1. On October 25, the judge had sent the duo to police custody after police told the court that they have the right to seek further custody of Purkayastha and Chakravarty, and that they need to confront them with protected witnesses and electronic material recovered. They were produced before court on expiry of their five-day judicial custody. Additional Public Prosecutor for Police Atul Srivastava had told the court that they have the right to seek further custody and therefore, they are exercising the same. Hence, the court had sent them to police custody till November 2. The Special Cell of Delhi Police had arrested Purkayastha and Chakravarty on October 3. A day after their arrest, the judge had sent them to seven days' police custody on October 4. Both then moved the high court challenging their police remand, which was upheld by the high court. The duo has now taken the matter to the Supreme Court against the dismissal of their petitions challenging police remand, and on October 19, the apex court had issued notices to Delhi Police on the petitions. The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice P. K. Mishra heard the pleas and issued notices returnable in three weeks. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, had earlier argued before the high court that "all facts are false and not a penny came from China". The Special Cell had registered an FIR in connection with the case on August 17 under different sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code against NewsClick. In August, a New York Timesinvestigation had accused NewsClick of being an organisation funded by a network linked with US millionaire Neville Roy Singham, to allegedly promote Chinese propaganda. /IANS