The Supreme Court heard on Monday the bail applications of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Gulfisha Fatima, Mohd. Saleem Khan, among others, in the alleged larger conspiracy case arising out of the northeast riots of Delhi in 2020. Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard very extensive submissions challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail on September 2.
Defendants learned of the probe’s end only on Sept 4 2024
The defendants contended they learned of the investigation’s completion on September 4, 2024, which contradicted the Delhi Police’s position that the defense had delayed the case. Senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal stated they had asked the prosecution many times, and the prosecution never stated it was complete until September 4, 2024, arguing, “That date is going to be the line in the sand,” further alleging the argument to frame the charge started the day after they were told it was complete.
Additionally, the Delhi Police claimed in an affidavit filed, writing, in October 2025, that not only were the documents submitted late, but just providing the documents took 39 hearings, and charges to frame were delayed by objections from the defense in 40一 of 41 hearings.
In the earlier High Court proceedings, it concurred with the police, mentioning the significant hold up caused by the defense. Agarwal responded, “My client has been in custody for over five and a half years, with 150 witnesses remaining to be examined. For every day of hold up, one day is already too long.”
In context of: Years in custody, without trial.
Most of the accused have been in jail since 2020 under the strict Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Delhi Police stated that the accused conspired to create “communal rioting” by the counter-CAA protests as a “decoy” for an actual – regime-change operation.
Umar Khalid, arrested in September 2020 on conspiracy and UAPA charges, made multiple bails applications in both trial court and the Delhi High Court, which was refused.
His application in the Supreme Court was adjourned 14 times until he withdrew it in February 2024, because of changed circumstances. Sharjeel Imam has also been accused in multiple states for multiple cases including sedition and UAPA cases.
He has been granted bail in some of these including cases in Delhi, Guwahati, and Aligarh but are presently in custody for the conspiracy case.
The accused contended that their actions should not be deemed criminal. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa-ur-Rehman, asserted that the accused had simply protested peacefully a law they were supportive or not in agreement with, and to simply be dissenting should not be made into a criminal action.
In discussing this, Khurshid noted the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi to communicate that “An unjust law must be disobeyed, non-violently.” Further, he stated that the prosecution had not produced a witness to indicate that the client’s actions were connected to violent acts and stated that the expansive actions alleged exceeded constitutionally due process limitations.
Also, the defence contended that the accused was not engaged in any of the riotous conduct, maintained that there was no CCTV of the accused being violent, and noted that multiple alleged perpetrators publicly differentiated their actions from one another when asserting their individual and group verbal claims through ultimate conspiracy.
Concerns About the Quality of the Investigation
Kapil Sibal, the lawyer for Umar Khalid, said that 97 of 116 people prosecuted in connection with the riots, were acquitted and/or had precisely stricture of law enforcement for fabricating statements and witness statements.
Although the Bench’s ‘evidence’ related to relevance was questioned, Sibal pointed to it as demonstrating “the nature and quality of the investigation” into the overreach of the Delhi Riots.
Supreme Court Will Continue Hearing
Given the arguments made and the length of custody, the Bench factored into this and has now formally scheduled the matter for argument on November 6 at 2 p.m.
The Court must now also consider the possibility of a length of a trial absent incarceration – and of an investigation which the state made a fact for closure and bore no burden for addendum on bail, and essentially accepted the denial under UAPA as comparable to house arrest (law).
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/national-news-civiclens-in/
About the Author
