The Delhi high court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petitions of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid and student activist Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots.
A bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Dinesh Bhatt said that while denying them bail on January 5, the Supreme Court had given them liberty to seek fresh bail either after the examination of protected witnesses or upon the expiry of one year, whichever was earlier.
HC cites Supreme Court’s bail conditions
The high court said it could not modify the condition imposed by the Supreme Court and was bound by “judicial discipline”.
The bench also rejected Khalid and Imam’s claim of parity with co-accused Tasleem Ahmad and Khalid Saifi, who were granted interim bail by the Supreme Court, noting that the allegations concerning their roles were different.
It also declined to rely on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs NIA, in which the apex court had expressed “serious reservations” about the reasoning adopted while denying bail to Khalid and Imam. The high court noted that the Andrabi judgment did not concern the “North East Delhi riots”.
Court says bail condition cannot be modified
{{/usCountry}}Court says bail condition cannot be modified
{{/usCountry}}“Perusal of the decision in Gulfisha Fatima is concerned, the Supreme Court has given them liberty only upon the happening of two circumstances — examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year, whichever is earlier. These two conditions would show that the specific liberty is clear and conditional, and this court would not be in a position to modify the condition,” the court said.
It added: “In view of the overall discussion and the conditions laid down, this court cannot find fault in the trial court’s order. The role of Tasleem Ahmad and Khalid Saifi is different from Umar Khalid and Sharjeel, and parity cannot be sought.”
Khalid and Imam had approached the high court against the trial court’s July 4 order denying them bail.
In their appeal, the two argued that there had been a material change in circumstances since the January 5 verdict. They submitted that the verdict had subsequently been questioned by the Supreme Court in the Andrabi case, that the apex court had granted bail to co-accused Ahmad and Saifi on the ground of delay in trial, and that six months had elapsed since the January 5 ruling. They also argued that the conditions in the January 5 order were not a prescription barring bail but a liberty granted to seek bail, and therefore could not come in the way of their release.
Also read: 2020 Delhi riots: HC to hear bail pleas by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in UAPA case on Sep 30
Delhi Police opposes pleas, cites alleged roles
The Delhi Police, represented by additional solicitor general SV Raju and special public prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, opposed the pleas, submitting that the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court barred their release at this stage. The prosecution also argued that Khalid and Imam were alleged co-conspirators and could not claim parity with Ahmad and Saifi because their alleged roles were different.
Imam was arrested by Delhi Police on January 28, 2020, and Khalid on September 30, 2020. They were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), with police alleging that they were among the key architects of the conspiracy that escalated into communal violence during the February 2020 Delhi riots.
The riots began on February 23, 2020, amid clashes between Hindus and Muslims during protests and counter-protests over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), leaving 53 people dead and hundreds injured.