The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the police regarding Umar Khalid's bail plea in a case linked to the North East Delhi riots of 2020. Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, has been in custody since September 2020 under charges related to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). His bail plea was previously dismissed by a trial court, prompting him to seek relief from the High Court.
The division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpaliya took this step, and the matter is now set for further hearing on August 29. Khalid is one of several accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots, a violent outbreak that led to numerous deaths and widespread property damage.
Umar Khalid has consistently maintained his innocence, arguing that his involvement in the riots is unfounded and that he is being targeted due to his activism and outspoken criticism of government policies. Despite these assertions, he has faced a series of legal challenges, with courts consistently ruling against his bail applications.
On May 28, Delhi’s Karkardooma Court denied Khalid regular bail, referencing the Delhi High Court's earlier decision that found prima facie evidence against him. Special Judge Sameer Bajpai highlighted that the High Court had conducted a thorough analysis of the allegations and concluded that they were sufficiently credible to deny bail.
The trial court reiterated this position, emphasising that the High Court had conducted a "surface analysis" of the case, which is a preliminary review to determine whether the allegations hold enough merit to justify continued detention. The court concluded that Khalid's involvement in the conspiracy was sufficiently established to deny his release on bail.
Khalid's legal journey has seen multiple setbacks. His initial bail application was rejected by the trial court, and subsequent appeals to higher courts have also been unsuccessful. The Supreme Court, where Khalid sought further relief, did not overturn the previous decisions, leading to his continued incarceration.
The UAPA, under which Khalid is charged, is a stringent anti-terrorism law in India. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA makes it difficult for accused individuals to secure bail, as it mandates that the court must be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against them are prima facie true. This high threshold has been a significant factor in the repeated denial of Khalid’s bail.
The case against Khalid involves allegations of inciting violence and being part of a larger conspiracy to destabilise the government. His arrest and prolonged detention have sparked widespread debate and criticism, particularly from human rights organisations and activists who argue that his detention is politically motivated.
The Delhi riots of 2020 were a dark chapter in the city's history, marked by intense communal violence. The investigation into the riots has been extensive, leading to numerous arrests and charges against individuals alleged to have played a role in inciting or participating in the violence.
As Khalid’s case proceeds, the upcoming hearing on August 29 will be closely watched. It will be a critical juncture in his legal battle, determining whether he will continue to be held in custody or be granted bail.
His supporters remain hopeful that the High Court will take a more favourable view of his plea, while the prosecution maintains that his release would pose a threat to public order and security.
In the broader context, Khalid’s case highlights the ongoing tensions and legal complexities in cases involving charges of terrorism and conspiracy under stringent laws like the UAPA. It underscores the delicate balance between national security and individual rights, a contentious issue in India’s legal and political landscape.
Follow us
