Delhi 2020 riots case: Supreme Court to decide bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others tomorrow

On behalf of Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal had told the court that the police were claiming that he instigated the rioters but didn't have any evidence to back the claim.

The Supreme Court will pronounce on Monday its decision on the bail pleas of the accused in the 2020 Delhi communal riots case, including Umar Khalid and others. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria will deliver the judgment. The bench has reserved its decision in the matter on December 10.

Months before that, on September 2, the Delhi High Court had rejected the bail pleas of nine accused in the case – Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulshifa Fathima, Meeran Haider, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman and Shadab Ahmed. The riots, the High Court said, were not a “regular protest” but a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy”.

Three other accused — Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha — were given bail by the High Court in June 2021. Another accused, former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, was granted bail in March 2022.

The nine accused had then approached the Supreme Court, seeking bail.

The Delhi Police had firmly opposed the bail pleas, contending that the riots, which killed 53 people, was a “criminal conspiracy hatched for achieving the final ‘regime change’ goal”. Police said that evidence indicated that the “instant conspiracy” was premeditated to coincide with Donald Trump’s official visit to India as the President of the United States at that time to attract international media attention and portray the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) as a “pogrom” against the Muslim community.

Opposing the plea for bail on grounds of delay in trial, the police said the petitioners were solely responsible for the delay and, therefore, should not be given any benefit of that. The prosecution added that there exists “ocular and irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence against the petitioners showing their intrinsic, deep-rooted and fervent complicity in engineering nation-wide riots on communal lines”.

Countering this, senior advocate A M Singhvi, who had appeared for accused Gulfisha Fatima, said the argument of regime change was never raised earlier and was being raised before the SC only to prejudice the court’s mind. “Where have you alleged regime change as the heart of your chargesheet? They say it’s a pan India conspiracy to separate Assam from India? Regime change aspect was never argued in the HC or trial court. They suddenly say ‘regime change’ to make it sound more serious,” Singhvi submitted.

The speech referred to by police as what provoked rioters, Sibal said, was made on February 17 at Amaravati in Maharashtra and the riots took place on “23rd, 24th and 25th in Delhi during which time, Khalid was not in Delhi”.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who appeared for the Delhi Police, however, insisted that Khalid deliberately left the national capital before the violence unfolded to absolve himself. Flagging some of the alleged inflammatory speeches, the police also said that “intellectuals when they guide and become terrorists, become more dangerous than those working at the ground”. The hearings also witnessed Delhi Police and the counsel for the accused play some of the speeches of the accused in the court.

At the trial court, where the main case is being heard, the case is currently at the stage of arguments on charge and the trial is far from beginning. Only after arguments are concluded, will the charges be framed in the case. (see box). The next date of hearing is January 8. There are a total of over 700 witnesses who will all be examined and the trial is unlikely to be concluded soon.