The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail petitions of activists Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and others accused of being part of a “larger conspiracy” linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, Live Law reported.
On July 9, a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had reserved its order on the pleas by Imam, Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima, who have been in jail for more than five years.
Another division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected the bail petition of Tasleem Ahmed, The Indian Express reported.
Imam’s lawyer Ahmad Ibrahim told Bar and Bench that they will move the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order.
The accused persons were all arrested between January and September 2020 and booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act and the Indian Penal Code in connection with the clashes that broke out in North East Delhi in February 2020 between supporters of the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act and those opposing it.
The violence had left 53 dead and hundreds injured. Most of those killed were Muslims.
The Delhi Police have claimed that the violence was part of a larger conspiracy to defame Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and was planned by those who organised the protests against the amended Citizenship Act.
Since the trial court is yet to frame the charges against them, the persons accused in the case had sought bail primarily on the grounds that the trial has been delayed.
They also argued for parity with the other co-accused in the case – student activists Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal – who were granted bail in June 2021.
During the last hearing, the prosecution had opposed the bail plea, saying it was a planned riot with a sinister motive and well-thought-out conspiracy, The Hindu reported.
Imam’s counsel had earlier argued that he was “completely disconnected” with the place, time and co-accused persons, including Khalid.
His speeches and Whatsapp chats never called for any unrest, the counsel had argued.
Khalid’s counsel had argued during earlier hearings that merely being part of a WhatsApp group to support protests cannot be considered as proof of criminal activity.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!