There was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the apex court bench said. However, activists Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad have been granted bail
Umar Khalid deliberately planned to leave Delhi before the riots as he wanted to deflect responsibility, the additional solicitor general argued. File pic
The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday refused bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, while granting bail to five other accused, citing the “hierarchy of participation” and noting that not all accused stand on the same footing, news agency PTI reported.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). While the two will remain in jail, activists Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad have been granted bail.
The court said Khalid and Imam could file fresh bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or one year from today, noting that their roles are “qualitatively different” from the other accused, PTI reported.
“The prosecution prima facie disclosed a central and formative role and involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts,” the bench said.
The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
“Delay in trial does not operate as a trump card which automatically displaces statutory safeguards,” the bench said, adding that “all the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. The hierarchy of participation emerging from the prosecution’s case requires the court to examine each application individually”.
“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. This stage of proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail,” the apex court said.
Delhi riots case: SC directs trial court to expedite bail
The top court directed the trial court to expedite bail processes, imposing 12 conditions and warning that any misuse of liberty would attract cancellation of bail, PTI reported.
“Right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution requires the State to justify prolonged pre-trial custody,” the bench added.
The court also clarified that while bail in UAPA cases is not granted as a matter of routine, the law does not mandate automatic denial, and the court retains jurisdiction to allow bail.
Imam was first arrested on January 28, 2020, for speeches made during anti-CAA protests, and later in a broader conspiracy case in August 2020. Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020.
On December 10, the top court reserved its verdict on separate pleas of the accused after hearing arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju for Delhi Police, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid, and Sidharth Luthra for the accused.
Opposing the bail pleas, Delhi Police argued that the riots were pre-planned and well-orchestrated, describing them as a deliberate attack on India’s sovereignty. Raju contended that all participants are liable for each other’s acts under the conspiracy, and that Imam’s speeches could be attributed to Khalid. He also argued that Khalid had deliberately planned to leave Delhi before the riots to deflect responsibility.
Seeking bail, Imam said he had been labelled a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” without a full trial or a single conviction. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave argued that Imam’s January 28 arrest was before the communal violence erupted, and that his speeches alone could not constitute a criminal conspiracy in the riots.
All seven accused were booked under the stringent anti-terror UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” behind the riots. Section 16 of the UAPA states that anyone committing a terrorist act resulting in death can face life imprisonment or the death penalty, in addition to a fine.
The violence occurred during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The accused had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order denying them bail in the larger conspiracy case.
(With PTI inputs)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
