Former JNU student Umar Khalid withdraws bail plea from SC in UAPA case
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was told by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, that he wishes to withdraw the bail plea due to “change in circumstances”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed student activist Umar Khalid to withdraw his bail plea after the former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar, accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for his alleged role in the 2020 Delhi riots, informed the Court that he will be approaching the trial court again for bail.
A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal passed the order allowing Khalid to withdraw his plea for bail after a request in this regard was made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for him.
Sibal said, “There has been a change in circumstances. We will try our luck again before the trial court. We wish to withdraw the bail matter.”
Also Read: SC adjourns until Jan 24 hearing of ex-JNU student leader Umar Khalid’s pleas
Khalid has also filed a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of the provisions of UAPA, including Section 43D placing stringent conditions for bail, which was also listed on Wednesday before the same bench.
“We will argue the legal question that we have raised in the writ petition,” Sibal added.
Khalid moved the top court in April against the Delhi high court’s order denying him bail.
The bench recorded the statement of Khalid’s lawyer and allowed withdrawal of the appeal challenging the dismissal of his bail by the Delhi high court on October 18, 2022.
Khalid was arrested by the Delhi Police on September 13, 2020, in connection with the Delhi riots and has since been languishing in prison.
The Delhi Police had responded to Khalid’s bail plea in the top court accusing him of being the alleged “mastermind” of the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi.
The violence, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured, erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Opposing bail, the Delhi Police said, “The detention of the petitioner in judicial custody (in jail) is warranted, essential and necessary for fearless, truthful and freely deposition of protected witnesses by the trial court.”
The high court while refusing bail found the allegations against Khalid to be prima facie true, a sufficient condition under section 43D of UAPA to refuse bail. Khalid sought bail citing the failure of the police to show any recovery from him to substantiate the charges under UAPA.
He also pointed out the material inconsistencies in the evidence relied upon by the police to incriminate him.
