Today, On 5th January, The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stating that the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence under UAPA, highlighting their involvement in planning and executing the larger criminal conspiracy.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court denied bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the “larger conspiracy case” associated with the 2020 Delhi riots.
Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale stated that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam, leading to the statutory prohibition on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
They remarked that, at this stage, the prosecution’s evidence does “not justify their enlargement on bail,” noting their involvement in planning, mobilization, and strategic direction.
Finally, the Supreme Court reminded the State of its constitutional obligation, noting that,
“Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre trial custody.”
In contrast, bail was granted to five others accused in the case, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
All seven individuals had contested the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny them bail related to the stringent UAPA, which pertains to the alleged broader conspiracy behind the Delhi riots.
Justice Aravind Kumar read a comprehensive judgment before delivering the verdict.
In rejecting the bail requests of Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court affirmed that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence indicating their participation in the criminal conspiracy.
The Court distinguished the charges against each individual involved, emphasizing that all cannot be treated equally for bail considerations.
The bench stated,
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” “The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually.”
The judgment also included technical elements, such as observations that bail should not be a venue for assessing defenses, and that judicial restraint does not equate to neglect of duty.
A structured inquiry is necessary to determine whether prima facie offences exist and if the accused’s role has a reasonable connection to the crime.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether Section 15 of the UAPA applied to them, which outlines what constitutes a terrorist act. The Court considered factors including any acts that threaten the country’s unity, integrity, or economic security.
According to the Delhi Police, the accused’s actions constituted a deliberate effort to undermine the state and were not mere spontaneous protests. They purportedly orchestrated a “pan-India” conspiracy aimed at “regime change” and “economic strangulation.”
The conspiracy was reportedly planned to coincide with the visit of US President Donald Trump to India, aiming to attract international media attention and globalize the issue surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which was strategically chosen as a “radicalizing catalyst” disguised as a “peaceful protest.”
Imam surrendered to authorities in January 2020, while Khalid was arrested in September of that year amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Rights organizations like Amnesty International have condemned the lengthy incarceration of the student activistsover five years to dateand described it as an “exemplification of derailment of justice.”
The outbreak of violence was linked to protests against the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), resulting in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
These individuals have been in custody for more than five years, facing serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The activists had earlier approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail but were denied relief.
Previously, bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria reserved its ruling on the bail applications submitted by the accused on December 10.
Previously, The Delhi Police firmly opposed the release of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and three others charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
In a statement to the Supreme Court, the police contended that the alleged offenses represented a deliberate attempt to undermine the state, thus justifying “jail and not bail,” as reported by media outlets on Thursday.
The police argued that the petitioners were attempting to portray themselves as victims due to prolonged imprisonment, even though the delay in the trial was a result of their own actions.
In a detailed 177-page affidavit submitted on October 30, the Delhi Police argued that the violence that erupted in February 2020 was not merely a spontaneous reaction to protests against theCitizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but rather a part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent, according to a report in the media.
The police indicated that encrypted chats and messages show the protests were strategically timed to coincide with Trump’s visit in February 2020, ensuring global attention.
The nine people whose bail was denied by the high court were Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.
In a separate order on the same day, another bench of the high court also rejected the bail plea of accused Tasleem Ahmed.
Earlier, The Delhi alleged that they were the “masterminds” behind the large-scale violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
Khalid’s bail pleas have been repeatedly rejected. The trial court denied his request in March 2022, and the Delhi High Court refused his appeals in October 2022 and again on September 2, 2024.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters
Read Attachment
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi riots
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
