Student-activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by Delhi High Court on Tuesday, weren't released from jail on Wednesday as a Delhi court deferred the hearing of the issue.

The court said that it will pronounce a verdict on the matter on June 17 at 11 am.

"Order could not be passed due to heavy board of bail applications listed before the undersigned. Be put up for orders tomorrow at 11 am", livelaw.com quoted the bench as saying,

The order comes after the Delhi police sought time to verify the sureties and match the residential addresses of the appellants with official records.

Narwal, Kalita and Tanha had moved the trial court for their immediate release after they remained imprisoned past the 1 pm deadline set by the High Court on Tuesday. They were ordered to be released on personal bonds of ₹ 50,000 each and two sureties of a similar amount.

The case was heard on Wednesday afternoon with the lawyers for the activists pitted against the investigating officer and Special Public Prosecutor. Both sides had lots to say, according to a report in ndtv.com. At the end of it, Additional Sessions Judge Revinder Bedi said she would pass her order later on Wednesday.

“The accused have given permanent addresses as Jharkhand, Assam and Haryana. It has to be verified... (there is) paucity of time to complete the verification,” the special prosecutor said in the court.

“Charge sheet lists address as Delhi. Arrest memo shows Delhi address. Parents' address (hometowns) isn't our address here. As adults we rent a place and live in Delhi,” the activists’ lawyer shot back.

The Delhi Police have also moved the Supreme Court challenging three separate judgements of the Delhi High Court granting bail to the activists.

The three appellants, Narwal, Kalita and Tanha, were arrested at different times last year. Narwal and Kalita, both JNU students, were arrested in January, and charged with making inflammatory speeches and inciting people to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Tanha, a Jamia Millia Islamia was arrested in May, accused of being part of a “premeditated” conspiracy to provoke the riots.

The high court judges set aside a decision by the trial court to refuse bail to the three accused. They were asked to post a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each as well as two sureties of similar amounts.

All three accused were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. However, the two-judge bench of Justice Sidharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani declared: “We are unable to discern in the subject charge-sheet the elemental factual ingredients that are a must to found the offences defined under Section 15, 17 or 18 UAPA.”