The Supreme Court heard bail pleas in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Umar Khalid and others. ASG SV Raju, representing the Centre, said, “There are some people who do not deserve even a day’s release.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
This includes the bail applications of several accused individuals, such as Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, and Meeran Haider.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represents the government, asserted,
“There are some people who do not deserve even a day’s release.”
Defense lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid, and Siddharth Agarwal, contended that the case is driven by political motives and that the accused are unjustly imprisoned.
Each attorney provided distinct arguments supporting their clients, emphasizing that no calls for violence were made, no meetings were organized to plan a conspiracy, and there is a lack of solid evidence.
The government maintains that some accused pose a significant threat and should not be granted any freedom. ASG Raju claimed that the defense is misrepresenting facts to garner sympathy, insisting that the case is grounded in factual evidence rather than being merely a “peace protest.”
Kapil Sibal, arguing for Umar Khalid, noted the absence of direct evidence against his client. He pointed out that although 751 FIRs were filed, he was implicated in just one, from which he was discharged in December 2022.
Sibal stated that he was not involved in any violent incidents and highlighted that 116 trials have been completed, resulting in 97 acquittals. He also alleged that many documents presented were fraudulent.
When Justice Kumar questioned the relevance of this information, Sibal replied,
“I am just stating the facts.”
In response, ASG Raju remarked,
“This is all an attempt to influence the court.”
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid passionately defended Shifa-ur-Rehman, arguing that the current atmosphere resembles the Chicago 7 trial during the Vietnam War.
He emphasized that peaceful protests should not be criminalized, asserting that there are no witnesses linking his client to the violence. Khurshid stated that Shifa-ur-Rehman was singled out and accused without any substantial evidence against him under the UAPA.
He insisted that his client had no role in any illegal gatherings and was only a member of the Jamia Coordination Committee.
Khurshid referenced the bail granted to three others by the High Court, stating that Rehman should receive bail on similar grounds, quoting Gandhiji: “If a law is unjust, it is a moral duty to challenge it.”
Justice Kumar interjected,
“This is India, not Chicago.”
Siddharth Agarwal, representing Meeran Haider, argued that he has been unjustly categorized among serious offenders despite having a limited role. He highlighted that while the prosecution claimed total expenditures of 16 million rupees, only a fraction was attributed to him.
Agarwal noted that others with less serious allegations have been granted bail, while he has remained incarcerated for over five years.
He stated,
“I was granted interim bail twice and surrendered on time both times. No witnesses were intimidated, no evidence was tampered with. Yet the investigation is still being described as incomplete.”
Mohammad Salim Khan’s lawyer emphasized that his client lives in Chand Bagh with his family and has no affiliations with any organizations or violent activities.
He argued that the police’s claim regarding a camera incident does not warrant prolonged detention, pointing out that Salim has been granted interim bail multiple times, consistently surrendering as required.
Following the hearings, the Supreme Court scheduled the next session for November 6 at 2 pm, indicating that the complexity of the case could lead to an extended discussion.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
