- Delhi court reserved order on Khalid, Imam bail pleas.
- Activists cited prolonged detention; delayed trial violates rights.
- Their pleas follow previous Supreme Court bail rejection.
- They cited recent Supreme Court’s UAPA bail remarks.
New Delhi, Jul 4 (PTI) A Delhi court on Saturday reserved its order on bail applications moved by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai reserved its order after hearing the arguments from both sides. The judge will likely pass the order in the evening.
Khalid and Imam moved bail pleas contending that their continued incarceration without commencement of trial violated their fundamental right to liberty.
Khalid’s plea also argued that even as his earlier application was rejected by the apex court, subsequent judicial developments constituted a “change in circumstances.” He referred to the court’s remarks in May in another case when it asserted that “bail is the rule” even under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The fresh pleas were filed after the Supreme Court on January 5 refused them bail in the UAPA case.
In his application, Imam said there had been no “significant development” in the proceedings even six months after the Supreme Court judgment denied him bail and that he has been in custody for nearly six years without trial.
The plea said charges were yet to be framed in the case despite prolonged incarceration of the two activists.
Khalid also cited prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, submitting that he has spent nearly six years in custody without charges being framed.
His application said the trial was unlikely to commence in the near future considering the large number of accused, witnesses, and documents relied upon by the prosecution.
The plea referred to the apex court’s observations in its May 18 order in a terror-related case, when, while granting bail to an accused, a two-judge bench criticised the January 5 verdict and emphasised that anti-terror laws should not become a tool for indefinite detention.
Khalid argued that a “change in circumstances” has made the present bail plea maintainable despite rejection of his earlier application by the apex court.
The application also cited various Supreme Court judgments on prolonged incarceration, including Union of India versus K A Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves versus State of Maharashtra, to contend that statutory restrictions on bail under UAPA cannot override constitutional protections where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
On January 5, the Supreme Court refused bail to Khalid and Imam in the larger conspiracy case while granting relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria then observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA and held that all accused could not be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation.” Khalid, Imam and several others were booked under the anti-terror UAPA and provisions of the IPC for allegedly being part of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi.
The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), leaving 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
(Disclaimer: This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
