Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan has strongly criticised the Supreme Court’s decision denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, calling it unfair and unjust. He said keeping them jailed for five years without trial based on protected witness statements makes a mockery of the right to life and liberty.
After the Supreme Court of India denied bail to Umar Khalid, ASG SV Raju launched a sharp attack on foreign support extended by US lawmakers, including Zohran Mamdani. Raju alleged that the CAA protests were a façade and hinted at suspected external influence behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
Today, On 5th January, The Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case while rejecting the pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stressing that “The court has consciously avoided a collective or unified approach.”
The Supreme Court will pronounce its crucial bail judgment on January 5 in the 2020 Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case. The decision will determine the bail fate of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha and others.
Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud explained why Umar Khalid’s bail has been pending for years, warning that judge-shopping is a major threat to the justice system. He stressed that Supreme Court case allotments follow strict rules, not personal choices.
The Supreme Court will hear bail applications of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima on September 12 after the Delhi High Court denied relief. The case relates to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots.
Prashant Bhushan strongly criticised the Delhi High Court for refusing bail to Umar Khalid case related to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots., saying it is shocking that he has spent five years in jail and still his trial has not even begun. What kind of justice is this?
The Delhi High Court observed that a rushed trial in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case would harm both the accused and the State while denying bail to Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and others booked under UAPA. The Court noted their alleged “inflammatory speeches” and upheld the gravity of their roles in the conspiracy.
