The Delhi Police opposed bail pleas from Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, arguing trial delays stemmed from the accused, not the prosecution. The prosecution stressed that national security and the gravity of the case, involving 53 fatalities during riots, outweighed the right to a speedy trial. Further hearings are set for February 2025.
New Delhi: The Delhi Police has strongly opposed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others, arguing that there was no deliberate attempt by the prosecution to delay the trial proceedings in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case. The police contended that the right to a speedy trial is not a “free pass” and cannot override national security concerns.
During the hearing before a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad defended the prosecution’s role, stating that the accused themselves contributed to the delay.
“Trial court record does not suggest any attempt on part of the prosecution to delay the matter, rather the boot is squarely and surely on the other leg,”
said Sharma.
Prasad further argued that judicial orders from the trial court confirmed that delays were sought by the accused.
“Arguments on charges are going on. Second accused has concluded submissions… They wanted a delay of two weeks. Despite day-to-day hearings, accused are not coming forward for arguments,”
he alleged.
The prosecution emphasized that while a speedy trial is a fundamental right, cases related to terrorism and national integrity require a different approach. Sharma stated that long incarceration alone was not a valid ground for bail in such cases.
“Right to speedy trial was not a free pass.. The right of society must prevail over right of the individual,”
he argued.
The court was urged to consider the intent of the accused and the loss of life before deciding on their bail applications.
Highlighting the gravity of the case, Sharma reminded the court that 53 people lost their lives during the violence, and multiple high court benches have already held that a conspiracy existed and UAPA was applicable.
“This is a case where 53 people lost their lives or were made to lose their lives… Two benches of the high court clearly held that yes, there is a conspiracy made out and yes, UAPA is attracted,”
he said.
The Delhi riots case stems from violent clashes during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which left over 700 people injured. Khalid, Imam, and others were booked under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the masterminds of the violence.
Khalid and the other accused challenged previous trial court orders denying them bail, arguing that their extended imprisonment and parity with other co-accused who secured bail justified their release.
Most bail applications, including those filed by Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Khalid Saifi, date back to 2022, and have been heard by various high court benches at different times. Umar Khalid moved the Delhi High Court again in 2024 for bail after his first plea was dismissed in October 2022.
The matter remains pending, with further hearings scheduled for February 20, 2025. The court is expected to assess the legal grounds for bail against the seriousness of the charges and national security concerns before making a decision.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES