The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to Salim Malik in the Delhi riots case. Malik’s bail plea was dismissed by the court, citing the seriousness of the charges against him.
![[Delhi Riot 2020] Delhi HC Denies Bail to Salim Malik](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-27-1.png?resize=820%2C456&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: On Monday (22nd April): The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of Salim Malik, an accused in the February 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. A Division Bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain delivered the order on April 22, emphasizing that Malik had attended meetings where discussions about inciting violence and causing destruction in Delhi had taken place. The court stated that such actions were unacceptable in a democratic nation.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Demands Specifics on Sharjeel Imam’s Alleged Role in Delhi Riots
During the meeting, discussions also revolved around matters concerning finances, the procurement of weapons, the acquisition of petrol bombs for targeted killings, arson attacks on properties, and the destruction of CCTV installations in the area.
Regarding the appellant’s involvement, the Court asserted,
“Sufficient evidence on record establishes the appellant’s role as a co-conspirator, implicating him in the offenses outlined in the charge-sheet.”
Furthermore, the High Court stated,
“Hence, considering the prohibition outlined in Section 45 D (5) of UAPA, we find no basis for the present appeal, and thus, it is dismissed. It’s emphasized that any remarks made herein do not reflect a stance on the case’s merits. The trial court should remain impartial and uninfluenced by these remarks while adjudicating the charges.”
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Demands Specifics on Sharjeel Imam’s Alleged Role in Delhi Riots
Background
Salim Malik, who was arrested by the Delhi Police on June 25, 2020, faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Delhi Police alleged that Malik was involved in a premeditated conspiracy to orchestrate disruptive activities, including the chakka jam (roadblock) and planned protests in different parts of Delhi, with the intention of escalating violence and causing riots in the capital.
In October 2022, the trial court had rejected Malik’s bail plea, noting his attendance at “conspiratorial meetings” and his alleged role as the organizer of the Chand Bagh protest site, where an inflammatory speech was purportedly delivered.
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had observed that Malik was present in northeast Delhi during the riots and had connections with other accused persons, implying that his involvement needed to be considered in the context of the overall case.
“At the time of riots, accused Saleem Malik was present in northeast Delhi Accused Saleem Malik was connected with accused persons…The role of these accused persons and others also has to be considered while understanding the role of present applicant/accused,” the Court had said.
The Delhi High Court, while considering the bail plea, acknowledged the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to carry out public demonstrations. However, the court emphasized that when such demonstrations turn violent, resulting in damage to public and private property and endangering lives, they exceed the boundaries of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and become punishable offenses.
The court dismissed the bail plea based on sufficient evidence indicating Malik’s participation as a co-conspirator and his commission of the offenses for which he was charged. Section 45 D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts granting bail in certain circumstances,.
“While citizens in this country have the right to protest, it must be conducted peacefully and without turning to violence.”
The High Court clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression of the merits of the case and that the trial court should not be influenced by these observations while deciding the charges.
Case Title: Salim Malik @Munna Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)