No Supreme Court relief for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, bail pleas in 2020 Delhi riots case rejected | Today News

Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to student activists, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi riots case. The top court however ordered the release of five other co-accused in the case citing the gravity of allegations againts Umar and Sharjeel, legal news website Bar and Bench reported.

The Apex court said it was necessary to examine each appeal independently, adding that the record discloses that appellants are not on equal footing when it comes to culpability.

The Court said that the bail petition of each accused has to be examined individually since the seven accused were not on equal footing as regards culpability, Bar and Bench reported.

"Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused," the Bench said.

The accused – Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad – were booked under the stringent anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the riots, which left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

The material on record discloses a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam, the Court said.

"This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail," the Court directed.

The Court said that Khalid and Imam can move for bail again on completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from the present order.

Fatima, Haider, Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Ahmad have been granted bail subject to strict conditions.

The Court said that delay in trial can serve as a trigger for judicial scrutiny even in cases involving offences under the UAPA, like the present one.

"The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgment as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre trial stage. Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The discussion has been confined to delay and prolonged incarceration. UAPA offences are rarely confined to isolated acts. The statutory scheme reflects this understanding," the Court stated.

Khalid, a former JNU scholar has been in custody since September 13, 2020, while activist Imam has been prisoned since January 28, 2020, weeks before the Delhi riots broke out.

Imam was also booked in multiple FIRs across several states, mostly under Sedition and UAPA charges. Though he secured bail in other matters, he is yet to get bail in the larger conspiracy case.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria pronounced the verdict on multiple pleas of the accused in the case.

Communal riots broke out in parts of Northeast Delhi in February 2020, amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The riots, which lasted several days, led to the several deaths, along with large-scale damage to homes, shops, and places of worship.

The top court had on 10 December reserved its verdict on separate pleas of the accused after hearing arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the accused.

The allegations against the the accused are that of hatching a ‘larger conspiracy’ to cause multiple riots. The FIR was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA.

Khalid and others had moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying them bail. The top court had issued notice to the Delhi Police in the matter on September 22.

The Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas and said the riots were not spontaneous, but an “orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed” attack on India's sovereignty.