The Delhi Police Today (Jan 7) strongly opposed the bail pleas of accused individuals in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, citing the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma urged the court to adopt a “very strict view” due to the gravity of the case, describing the alleged conspiracy as “clinical, pathological, and planned by forces inimical to India.” The bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others, held in custody for years, were challenged on grounds of previous bail denials, lack of changed circumstances, and delays in the trial allegedly caused by the accused themselves. The arguments will continue in court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi Police on Tuesday argued against granting bail to the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case by invoking the strict provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in Delhi High Court.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma emphasized the seriousness of the case, urging the Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur to adopt a “very strict view” considering the case’s gravity.
“[Article] 21 is also available to those injured and those who are no more. 21 can’t be seen in isolation. This conspiracy is clinical, pathological and planned to execute by forces inimical to India. The same forces which have let themselves out on the leash in our neighboring country,”
-Sharma stated.
The Court was hearing bail pleas from several accused, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, and others, who have been imprisoned for several years. The accused sought bail citing delays in the trial proceedings, as charges have yet to be framed by the trial court. Khalid and Imam also presented detailed arguments regarding their merits.
ASG Sharma specifically addressed Umar Khalid’s case, noting that he had already been denied bail earlier and that there had been no significant change in circumstances to justify another bail plea.
Referring to the UAPA’s stringent bail conditions, Sharma remarked:
“In a prima facie examination, your lordships will only see probative value that if there is an accusation and that accusation is reasonable, that is just about it.”
Sharma also referenced notable Supreme Court judgments, such as the 2019 ruling in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and the recent Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another.
These cases highlight that mere delays in trial cannot serve as a ground for bail. Additionally, Sharma argued that the accused themselves were responsible for the trial delays, citing three orders issued by the trial judge.
“I need not say more. The record is speaking for itself,”
-Sharma added.
The Delhi Police will continue presenting their arguments in court on Wednesday (Jan 8).
PREVIOUSLY IN DELHI HC
On 20th Dec the bench, consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, deferred the hearing due to the unavailability of additional solicitor general S V Raju, who was absent on Friday. The court expressed concern about adjourning bail matters, noting that similar cases had been heard previously, resulting in releases.
Khalid Saifi’s counsel argued against further delays, emphasizing that Saifi has been in custody for nearly five years. Khalid, Imam, and several others face charges under UAPA and the IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” behind the riots, which led to 53 deaths and over 700 injuries during protests against the CAA and NRC.
They are seeking bail based on their long period of imprisonment and the fact that other co-accused have been granted bail. Most bail petitions were filed in 2022 and heard by various benches. Umar Khalid is now seeking bail for the second time after his previous plea was rejected in October 2022.
In February 2020, the Delhi Police charged activist and former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid with inciting the 2020 Delhi Riots during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. Khalid faced charges under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for vandalism, as well as Sections 435 (arson), 147 and 148 (rioting), 302 (murder), 124A (sedition), and 149 (unlawful assembly). He was also charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Arms Act, 1959.
For his speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia University (Delhi) and Aligarh Muslim University (Uttar Pradesh) in January 2020, Sharjeel Imam faced charges under various sections of the IPC, including Section 124A (sedition), Section 121 (waging war against the Government), and Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups based on religion). He was also charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
In March and April 2022, the Sessions Court in Delhi denied bail to Khalid and Imam. They appealed these decisions at the Delhi High Court, which agreed to hear both appeals together on April 29th.
On May 6th, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing Sharjeel Imam, stated that FIRs had been lodged in Delhi regarding Imam’s two speeches at Aligarh and Jamia. Separate FIRs were filed against him in Uttar Pradesh for his speech at Aligarh Muslim University. The Allahabad High Court granted him bail in the Uttar Pradesh case, ruling that his speech did not incite violence.
Justice Siddharth Mridul asked Mr. Mir to present the FIR related to Imam’s speech in Aligarh. However, Mr. Mir admitted that the FIR was not on record.
The Bench granted Mr. Mir time to submit the FIR and chargesheet filed against Imam in Aligarh. It was decided that Imam’s bail application for the Delhi cases would be heard on May 26th, while Khalid’s bail application for the Delhi Riots conspiracy case was scheduled for May 19th and 20th, and Imam’s application for the same case on May 23rd.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
