In its key verdict in the matter, the Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are accused for offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case.However, the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria granted bail to five other accused - Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan.
The Court stated that the bail petition of each accused has to be examined individually since the seven accused were not on equal footing as regards culpability."Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused," the Bench said. The material on record discloses a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam, the Court ruled.
"This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail," the Court directed.However, the Court said that Khalid and Imam can move for bail again on completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from the present order.As regards the other five, the Court granted them bail subject to strict conditions.
The Court said that delay in trial can serve as a trigger for judicial scrutiny even in cases involving offences under the UAPA, like the present one."The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgment as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre trial stage. Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The discussion has been confined to delay and prolonged incarceration. UAPA offences are rarely confined to isolated acts. The statutory scheme reflects this understanding," the Court stated.
Right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution requires the State to justify prolonged pre-trial custody, the Bench underlined.
It said that while bail in UAPA cases 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.
"Section 43D(5) of UAPA departs from general provisions for grant of bail. (But) it does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default," the Bench said. The riots occurred in February 2020 following clashes over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As per the Delhi Police, the riots caused the death of 53 persons and injured hundreds.
The present case pertains to allegations that the accused had hatched a larger conspiracy to cause multiple riots. The FIR in this case was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA.Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly as well as several other offences under UAPA.He has been in jail since then.
Imam was also booked in multiple FIRs across several states, mostly under Sedition and UAPA charges. Though he secured bail in other matters, he is yet to get bail in the larger conspiracy case.Khalid and others had moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying them bail. The top court had issued notice to the Delhi Police in the matter on September 22.
In response to the bail petitions, the Delhi Police filed an affidavit contending that there is irrefutable documentary and technical evidence pointing to a conspiracy for a "regime-change operation" and plans to incite nationwide riots on communal lines and kill non-Muslims. During the hearing of the matter on October 31, the riots accused told the Court that they did not make any calls for violence and were only exercising their right to peaceful protests against the CAA.
Follow us
