Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgement On Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam’s Bail In Delhi Riots Case On Monday

The Supreme Court will decide on 5 January whether Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others should receive bail in the UAPA linked Delhi riots case, assessing charges, evidence, and pre trial detention given the number of witnesses and ongoing proceedings.

India

-Gaurav Sharma

The
Supreme
Court
is
set
to
deliver
its
decision
on
5
January
on
the
long-pending
pleas
for
release
filed
by
activist
Umar
Khalid,
scholar
Sharjeel
Imam
and
several
others,
all
seeking
regular
bail
in
the
UAPA
case
connected
to
the
alleged
“larger
conspiracy” behind
the
February
2020
Delhi
riots.

The
verdict
will
address
challenges
to
a
2
September
Delhi
High
Court
order
that
refused
bail
to
Umar
Khalid,
Sharjeel
Imam,
Gulfisha
Fatima,
Meeran
Haider,
Shifa
Ur
Rehman,
Mohd
Saleem
Khan
and
Shadab
Ahmed,
who
argue
that
continued
detention
under
the
stringent
anti-terror
law
is
not
justified
by
the
evidence
on
record.

Umar
Khalid
Sharjeel
Imam
bail
case
and
Supreme
Court
hearing
details

A
bench
of
Justices
Aravind
Kumar
and
N.
V.
Anjaria
heard
detailed
submissions
from
both
sides
and
reserved
judgment
on
10
December,
after
arguments
on
the
nature
of
the
charges,
the
delay
in
trial
and
the
scope
of
the
UAPA
provisions
that
have
been
invoked
in
connection
with
the
north-east
Delhi
violence.

On
behalf
of
the
Delhi
Police,
Solicitor
General
Tushar
Mehta
and
Additional
Solicitor
General
S.
V.
Raju
opposed
the
plea
for
liberty,
while
senior
advocates
Kapil
Sibal,
Abhishek
Singhvi,
Siddhartha
Dave,
Salman
Khurshid
and
Sidharth
Luthra
appeared
for
the
accused,
questioning
the
strength
of
the
prosecution
case
and
the
prolonged
incarceration.

Background
to
the
Umar
Khalid
Sharjeel
Imam
bail
litigation
and
Delhi
riots

The
case
stems
from
clashes
that
broke
out
in
parts
of
north-east
Delhi
in
February
2020,
during
protests
over
the
Citizenship
(Amendment)
Act
and
the
proposed
National
Register
of
Citizens,
violence
that
resulted
in
53
deaths
and
injuries
to
more
than
700
people,
along
with
extensive
damage
to
homes
and
shops.

Investigators
have
invoked
the
Unlawful
Activities
(Prevention)
Act
along
with
sections
of
the
erstwhile
Indian
Penal
Code,
alleging
that
Umar
Khalid,
Sharjeel
Imam
and
others
functioned
as
“masterminds” who
coordinated
protests
and
road
blockades
that,
according
to
the
prosecution,
were
used
as
a
cover
to
organise
riots
on
communal
lines
across
the
area.

Police
affidavit
in
the
Umar
Khalid
Sharjeel
Imam
bail
dispute

In
an
affidavit
filed
in
October
before
the
Supreme
Court,
the
Delhi
Police
claimed
that
the
unrest
was
part
of
a
planned
“regime-change
operation”
designed
to
destabilise
India
and
damage
its
image
abroad,
asserting
that
the
events
were
not
spontaneous
but
followed
a
pattern
allegedly
visible
in
chats
and
witness
accounts.

The
police
told
the
court
that
they
rely
on
statements,
documents
and
digital
material
which,
in
their
view,
reveal
a
“deep-rooted
conspiracy
engineered
on
communal
lines.”
They
further
alleged
that
the
accused
have
slowed
the
case
by
filing
“frivolous
applications”
and
engaging
in
“coordinated
non-cooperation”
that,
according
to
investigators,
has
stretched
the
timeline.

Responding
to
the
contention
that
completing
a
trial
with
nearly
900
witnesses
would
take
many
years,
the
affidavit
said
that
this
concern
is
“a
red
herring
manufactured
to
obtain
bail”,
arguing
that
roughly
100
to
150
witnesses
are
crucial
and
that
the
process
could
move
quicker
if
the
accused
fully
joined
the
proceedings.

Relying
on
the
strict
framework
of
the
UAPA,
the
police
stressed
that
“jail,
not
bail” should
apply
in
alleged
terror-linked
offences,
arguing
that
the
seriousness
of
the
allegations
and
the
claimed
prima
facie
material
mean
that
delay
alone
cannot
be
a
valid
reason
for
release
while
the
trial
is
still
underway.

Alleged
roles
and
context
in
the
Umar
Khalid
Sharjeel
Imam
bail
case

According
to
the
prosecution,
Umar
Khalid
was
“the
founder
of
the
idea
of
Chakka
Jam
for
riots”
and
allegedly
helped
coordinate
plans
through
the
Delhi
Protest
Support
Group,
including
an
alleged
closed-door
meeting
at
Seelampur
where
participants
were
told
to
encourage
local
women
to
gather
stones,
knives,
acid
bottles
and
similar
items.

The
affidavit
states
that
Sharjeel
Imam
operated
“under
the
tutelage
of
Umar
Khalid
and
other
top
conspirators”
and
is
portrayed
as
a
key
planner
for
what
police
call
the
first
phase
of
the
agitation,
between
December
2019
and
early
2020,
by
allegedly
urging
crowds
through
speeches
at
Jamia
Millia
Islamia
and
Asansol
to
support
a
disruptive
“Chakka
Jam”.

Investigators
also
say
that
some
chat
messages
referred
to
the
visit
of
then
United
States
President
Donald
Trump,
contending
that
the
timing
of
the
unrest
was
intended
to
“globalise”
the
CAA
dispute,
so
that
international
attention
would
fall
on
the
protests
and
resulting
clashes
during
the
high-profile
diplomatic
trip.

The
petitioners,
however,
maintain
that
they
are
targeted
for
their
role
in
anti-CAA
protests
and
dispute
being
“masterminds”,
pointing
to
their
long
custody
and
arguing
through
counsel
that
bail
is
appropriate
while
the
trial
continues,
especially
given
the
wide
number
of
accused
and
witnesses
across
the
broader
riots-related
cases.

The
Supreme
Court’s
judgment
on
5
January
is
expected
to
shape
how
bail
is
considered
in
complex
UAPA
prosecutions
linked
to
the
2020
Delhi
riots,
and
will
be
a
major
point
in
the
ongoing
legal
contest
between
the
Delhi
Police
and
the
accused
over
allegations
of
conspiracy,
delay,
and
the
limits
of
prolonged
pre-trial
detention.