Delhi Police oppose Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam’s bail, call them ‘masterminds’ of riots plot

The Delhi Police have opposed the bail pleas of jailed student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court describing them as ldquomastermindsrdquo of the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riotsIn separate replies filed before the High Court the police also argued that the fresh bail pleas were not maintainable in view of the Supreme Courts January 5 order which had rejected bail for Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the caseThe prosecution said the two accused had been placed in a ldquoqualitatively differentrdquo category from other coaccused with the Supreme Court having identified their alleged roles as involving ldquocommand authorityrdquo and strategic direction in the alleged conspiracyPolice cite Supreme Courts January 5 orderldquoThe present bail proceedings are misconceived and illegal in view of the following grounds the present appellant is one of the lsquomastermindsrsquo of the Delhi riotsrdquo the replies saidThe Delhi Police relied heavily on the Supreme Courts January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi in which the apex court rejected the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accusedReferring to the Supreme Courts assessment of the prosecution material the police said the alleged masterminds were supported by ldquodirect corroborative and contemporaneous evidencerdquo including recoveries digital communication trails and statements indicating managerial responsibilityldquoThe alleged masterminds are stated to have exercised command authority and to possess the ability to mobilise or influence individuals within and outside their immediate circlerdquo the Delhi Police quoted the Supreme Court as having observedThe police further said the apex court had found the ldquorisk profilesrdquo of the accused to be ldquomarkedly dissimilarrdquo which according to the prosecution justified their continued detentionPolice question maintainability of fresh bail pleasThe Delhi Police contended that the present proceedings were ldquomisconceived and illegalrdquo and amounted to an abuse of the process of lawIt argued that the Supreme Court had already specified the circumstances under which Khalid and Imam could renew their bail pleasAccording to the police the January 5 directions allowed the two accused to renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or after one year from the date of the judgment whichever was earlierThe police said the present appeals had been filed before either of these circumstances had arisenldquoThe present bail proceedings having been filed before the examination of the protected witnesses or expiry of one year from the date of the Honrsquoble Supreme Courtrsquos order ie before 05012027 are in teeth of the Honrsquoble Supreme Courtrsquos binding directionsrdquo the replies saidIt added that the Supreme Court had itself identified the circumstances that could constitute a ldquochange in circumstancesrdquo for the accused to renew their bail pleasReliance on later Supreme Court rulings opposedThe Delhi Police also opposed the accuseds reliance on the Supreme Courts subsequent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs NIA arguing that the decision concerned a different case and could not override specific findings and directions issued in Khalid and Imams matterldquoThe judgment of a coordinate bench in a different case cannot override the specific findings and directions passed by the Honrsquoble Court in the Appellantrsquos own caserdquo the replies saidThe police said the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi judgment did not deal with the Delhi riots case or the alleged role of Khalid and ImamIt further argued that the findings in the Gulfisha Fatima decision including those relating to Section 43D5 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act had not been questioned in the later judgmentThe police similarly opposed reliance on the Supreme Courts May 22 interim order in Tasleem Ahmed vs State NCT of Delhi in which the issue concerning prolonged incarceration and restrictions on bail under the UAPA was referred to a larger BenchPolice say reference to larger Bench does not alter existing lawAccording to the Delhi Police the mere reference of a legal question to a larger Bench did not unsettle the law declared in an earlier judgmentThe prosecution relied on the Supreme Courts ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference which held that ldquomere reference to a larger Bench does not unsettle declared lawrdquoThe police also referred to the apex courts observation that High Courts must decide matters according to the law as it stands and cannot decline to follow a judgment merely because its correctness has subsequently been questioned by a coordinate BenchldquoIn any case when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courtsrdquo the Delhi Police said quoting the Supreme CourtAppeals challenge July 4 trial court ordersThe replies were filed in appeals challenging the July 4 orders of the Karkardooma trial court which dismissed the third regular bail applications of Khalid and Imam in FIR No 59 of 2020 registered by the Delhi Police Crime BranchThe Delhi Police urged the High Court to dismiss both appeals at the threshold describing the proceedings as an ldquoabuse of the process of lawrdquoKhalid has also sought interim bail citing prolonged incarceration and the reference pending before the Supreme Court on the interaction between Article 21 and the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D5 of the UAPAThe Delhi High Court had issued notice to the Delhi Police on July 31 on Khalids appeal and interim bail plea and listed the matter with Imams appeal for August 27 The hearing was subsequently deferred after August 27 was declared a holiday and the matters are now likely to be taken up on MondayThe case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020Khalid and Imam are among several accused booked under the UAPA and other penal provisions and have remained in custody for several yearsEarlier this year the Supreme Court declined bail to Khalid and Imam while granting bail to five coaccused including Gulfisha Fatima Meeran Haider Shifa Ur Rehman Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab AhmedMore recently the apex court granted six months interim bail to coaccused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delays in trial could justify the grant of bail despite restrictions under Section 43D5 of the UAPAWith inputs from IANS