Activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have moved fresh bail applications before a Delhi court in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, arguing that their continued incarceration without commencement of trial violates their fundamental right to liberty.
Khalid’s plea also contended that even though his earlier bail application was rejected by the Supreme Court, subsequent judicial developments amounted to a “change in circumstances”. Referring to the court’s observations in May in another case, he cited the principle that “bail is the rule...” even under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The fresh petitions were filed before Additional Sessions Judge Sumedh Saini after the Supreme Court on January 5 declined to grant bail to both accused in the UAPA case. The Delhi court has now sought a response from the Delhi Police and listed the matter for hearing on July 4.
In his application, Sharjeel Imam submitted that there had been no “significant development” in the proceedings even six months after the apex court’s order and that he had remained in custody for nearly six years. He also pointed out that charges are yet to be framed despite the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
Imam’s plea further relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Syed Iftikhar Andrabi versus NIA and Tasleem Ahmed versus State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), arguing that the legal position on bail in cases involving long incarceration under UAPA has been clarified in favour of liberty considerations.
He also submitted that he was not present in Delhi after the second week of January 2020 and was already in custody in another case when the northeast Delhi riots broke out in February that year.
Similarly, Umar Khalid, in his bail application, has cited prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial, stating that he has spent nearly six years in custody without charges being framed. He argued that the trial is unlikely to begin soon given the large number of accused persons, witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence cited by the prosecution.
His plea also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in its May 18 order in a terror-related case, where while granting bail to an accused, a two-judge bench criticised the January 5 verdict and stressed that anti-terror laws should not become a tool for indefinite detention.
Khalid contended that these subsequent judicial developments constitute a “change in circumstances”, making the present bail plea maintainable despite the Supreme Court’s earlier rejection.
The application further relied on judgments including Union of India versus K A Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves versus State of Maharashtra, arguing that statutory restrictions under UAPA cannot override constitutional protections where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable timeframe.
On January 5, the Supreme Court had refused bail to Khalid and Imam in the larger conspiracy case while granting relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under UAPA and held that all accused cannot be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation”.
Khalid, Imam and several others have been booked under the UAPA and provisions of the IPC for allegedly being part of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
The riots erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), leaving 53 people dead and over 700 injured.