The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are accused of being part of an alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, reported Live Law.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria allowed the bail applications of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Muhammad Saleem Khan in the matter.
The bench was hearing their petitions jointly challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 judgement dismissing their bail applications. The judgement in the plea had been reserved on December 10.
The activists were arrested between January 2020 and September 2020 in connection with the communal violence 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 accused were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The police have claimed that the violence was part of a larger conspiracy to defame the Narendra Modi government and was planned by those who organised the protests against the amended Citizenship Act.
On Monday, the bench said that Khalid and Imam can file bail applications after all protected witnesses are examined or after one year, reported Live Law.
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” the court was quoted as saying by Bar and Bench.
The bench said it was “satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case” against them. It added that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the conduct of Khalid and Imam was prima facie a terrorist act as defined under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, The Indian Express reported.
The evidence suggests their involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction of the alleged conspiracy, extending beyond periodic or localised actions, the newspaper quoted the court as having said.
The complexity of the prosecution, the nature of the evidence and the stage of the trial did not justify granting bail to Khalid and Imam, the bench added.
“Threshold under Section 43D(5) [of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act] stands attracted...continued detention has not crossed constitutional impermissibility to override the statutory embargo as against them,” the court said.
The section sets strict bail conditions for serious terror-related offenses, stating that bail must be denied if the court finds reasonable grounds after reviewing the chargesheet.
Watch: ‘Detention without trial violation of rights’: Banojyotsna Lahiri on CAA, godi media and Umar Khalid
After the High Court denied them bail on September 2, the activists moved the Supreme Court for relief.
In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in October, the Delhi Police opposed their petitions, arguing that their alleged actions were part of a coordinated “regime change operation” carried out under the guise of civil dissent.
The police had also argued that the petitioners were playing the “victim card” on the grounds of long incarceration, and claimed that they were themselves responsible for delaying the trial for “mala fide and mischievous reasons”.
The accused had said that they were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and that the larger conspiracy case is an attempt to criminalise dissent.
They had argued that their prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment before conviction, as the trial court is yet to frame charges and dozens of witnesses remain to be examined.
On Monday, the bench said that the delay in the trial of cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act does not operate as a “trump card” that can “automatically displace statutory safeguards”, reported Live Law.
It also said that while bail in cases under the anti-terror law is not given as a matter of routine, the “law does not mandate denial of bail as default and does not exclude the court’s jurisdiction to allow bail”.
Also read:
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!