Rights activist Umar Khalid, an accused in the 2020 Delhi communal riots, on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of his bail by Delhi High Court on September 2.
Khalid pleaded that the high court had erroneously rejected his plea despite no material evidence being found to connect him to the riots. More than 50 lives were lost, hundreds were injured and private and public properties destroyed in the February 24, 2020, communal riots.
Khalid is facing prosecution for his alleged involvement in the riots, including under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Delhi High Court had on September 2 dismissed his second bail plea. On September 2, a division bench of the high court had dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and eight others facing prosecution for the riots.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had rejected the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed. A separate division bench binned the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed.
All of them have been in jail for around five years, as it was held that the offences against the accused were of “grave” nature and it would not be proper to release them on bail at this juncture.
In its 133-page order, the high court said the allegations against the accused persons were grave and that the case and trial were progressing at a natural pace. “A hurried
trial would also be detrimental to the rights of both the appellants and the state,” it had said.
The high court had held that the role of Imam and Khalid was prima facie “grave” in the alleged conspiracy as they had delivered inflammatory speeches along communal lines during the protest against the CAA and the NRC.
“Roles of the co-accused out on bail were limited when juxtaposed with them, and the plea of parity is not made out,” the court said.
“However, in the present case, the probative value of the evidence against appellants Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, as detailed out by us in the foregoing discussion, prima facie and at this stage, cannot be branded as weak,” it added.
In 2022, too, the high court had dismissed Khalid’s bail plea. He had also filed a bail plea in the Supreme Court but withdrew it in October last year. He took back his bail plea from the Supreme Court in February 2024 after over 10 adjournments, attributed to paucity of time cited by both the defence lawyers and the prosecuting agency.
Bail clarity
The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether high courts can directly entertain anticipatory bail applications of accused persons in criminal cases instead of first asking them to approach the local sessions court for such relief.
The CrPC and its rechristened version, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, vest both courts with concurrent jurisdiction to deal with bail applications.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while granting bail to Mohammed Rasal and other persons who were denied bail by Kerala High Court, which had directly entertained their anticipatory bail application without asking them to first approach the sessions court.