Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case: Verdict On Khalid, Sharjeel Imam's Bail Reserved, Due Monday

A Delhi court reserved its order on fresh bail pleas by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, with the verdict likely by Monday. ASJ Sameer Bajpai heard arguments from both sides. The duo cited nearly six years in custody without trial as grounds for bail, while the prosecution said relief could come only after the Supreme Court's embargo period lapses. The Supreme Court had earlier denied them bail while granting relief to five co-accused.

Read full article

Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case: Verdict On Khalid, Sharjeel Imam's Bail Reserved, Due Monday

A Delhi court on Saturday reserved its order on fresh bail applications filed by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, with the judge indicating the ruling could come as early as the same evening or by Monday.

What Happened In Court

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts reserved the matter after hearing detailed submissions from both the defence and the prosecution. Appearing for Khalid, senior advocate Trideep Pais walked the court through the sequence of events leading to the plea, including the Supreme Court's earlier direction that Khalid and Imam could not seek bail for a year unless protected witnesses were examined first. Advocate Talib Mustafa, representing Imam, argued that his client has already undergone prolonged incarceration with no sign of the trial concluding soon, and that relief already granted to co-accused should extend to Imam as well.

The prosecution opposed the pleas, arguing that bail could only be considered after the embargo period lapsed or the protected witnesses were examined, whichever came first, and pointed out that the accused's review petition against the Supreme Court's earlier order had already been dismissed.

Background Of The Case

Khalid and Imam had approached the trial court afresh after a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court flagged concerns in a separate matter about how an earlier ruling denying them bail had applied the three-judge bench judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which recognises prolonged trial delay as a ground for bail even under the UAPA. On January 5, the Supreme Court had denied bail to Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five co-accused, including Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider.

Both accused argued in their fresh pleas that nearly six years in custody without the commencement of trial, and without charges even being framed, violated their fundamental right to personal liberty. They relied on Supreme Court precedents including Vernon Gonsalves v. State of Maharashtra to argue that prolonged incarceration cannot be justified indefinitely under anti-terror statutes.

The Case

The matter arises from FIR 59 of 2020, probed by the Delhi Police Special Cell, which alleges a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi. Besides Khalid and Imam, the case names several others including Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Natasha Narwal and Safoora Zargar. The accused face charges under the UAPA and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

With the order reserved, all eyes will now be on whether the trial court grants the two activists relief after years of pre-trial detention, or holds that the Supreme Court's embargo continues to bind it.