Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case: What’s Next?

Supreme Court's Decision on Delhi Riots Conspiracy

New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled against granting bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stating that the evidence indicates their involvement in orchestrating the 2020 Delhi riots.

The court referenced Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which mandates that bail be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie valid.

The justices, Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, expressed that the prosecution's evidence suggests a significant role played by Khalid and Imam in the alleged conspiracy.

The court noted that the evidence points to their involvement in planning and mobilizing efforts that went beyond isolated incidents.

Under the UAPA, individuals accused of serious offenses cannot be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been consulted, and the court finds no reasonable grounds for the accusations.

The Supreme Court emphasized that if the prosecution's evidence indicates a prima facie case, the statutory restrictions on bail must be upheld.

In contrast, the court granted bail to other activists, including Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider, clarifying that this decision does not undermine the seriousness of the allegations against them.

Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, for remarks made during anti-CAA protests, while Khalid was taken into custody on September 13, 2020.

The Delhi Police argued that Khalid and Imam conspired to undermine the nation's sovereignty under the guise of peaceful protests.

They claimed to have gathered substantial evidence indicating a coordinated effort to incite communal riots across the country.

The police asserted that the riots were not spontaneous but rather a result of a premeditated conspiracy, supported by documented communications and plans.

The evidence allegedly shows a clear intention to disrupt public order and incite violence against police and non-Muslims.

The police accused the petitioners of attempting to delay the trial and portray themselves as victims to secure bail due to prolonged detention.

They argued that the conduct of the accused, combined with the compelling evidence against them, disqualifies them from receiving bail.

In response to claims that the trial would be lengthy due to numerous witnesses, the police dismissed this as a tactic to gain bail.

The police further alleged that Khalid and Imam had created a communal WhatsApp group and incited students from various universities to participate in protests.

They claimed that Khalid held secret meetings to instruct participants to gather weapons and other dangerous items to incite riots.

The police also accused Fatima of coordinating efforts to escalate peaceful protests into violent confrontations.

The bail applications for Khalid, Imam, and others are set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court on Friday.

All accused, including Khalid and Imam, face charges under the UAPA and other provisions for their alleged roles in the riots that resulted in 53 fatalities and over 700 injuries.

The violence erupted amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

The Supreme Court had previously requested a response from the Delhi Police regarding the matter.

The activists are contesting a Delhi High Court ruling that denied bail to nine individuals, including Khalid and Imam, citing the need to prevent conspiratorial violence disguised as protests.