Umar Khalid and other accused in the Delhi riots case on Friday told the Supreme Court that their prolonged imprisonment without bail was on account of multiple court adjournments and not because of any delaying tactics as attributed to them by Delhi police.
The Delhi police had held them responsible for the delay in the commencement of the trial related to the 2020 communal riots that claimed 56 lives in the national capital.
The police on Thursday opposed the bail plea of Khalid and other accused, saying they had planned a pan-India conspiracy “to strike at the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of the country by destroying the communal harmony” and herald in a “regime change”. The police said the accused should not be granted bail on the ground of a delay in the commencement of the trial, which they attributed to the accused.
Besides Khalid, the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider were listed for consideration on Friday. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, which heard the plea, said the judges did not get the counter-affidavit filed by the police, prompting senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu
Singhvi, representing the accused, to complain that it was done deliberately by the government as part of its delaying tactics.
The two senior counsel said they came to know about the contents of the counter-affidavit only through newspapers. The Delhi police force is being represented by additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju.
Sibal, appearing for Khalid, rejected the allegations by the Delhi police that the trial had been delayed due to deliberate inaction and obstructions caused by the accused.
According to Sibal, Khalid had been in jail for over five years, and the trial proceedings had witnessed 55 dates, and on many occasions, proceedings could not be held due to the absence of the presiding officer, shortage of stenographers, Internet problems, lawyers’ strike, non-availability of police officers and other logistical reasons.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Imam, said he had been in custody for five years and nine months and was not even named in the original FIR.
Appearing for Gulfisha, Singhvi said his client had been in jail since April 2020, and the chargesheet was filed on September 16, 2020. Singhvi said Gulfisha could not secure bail as the State was filing supplementary chargesheets to delay the process. He said Gulfisha was the only woman accused in jail in the case, while three other women accused had obtained bail. The arguments will continue on Monday.