Activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have approached a Delhi court with fresh bail applications in the larger case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, arguing that their continued detention without the commencement of trial infringes upon their fundamental right to personal liberty.
The applications were filed before Additional Sessions Judge Sumedh Saini after the Supreme Court, on January 5, declined to grant them bail in the case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court has sought a response from Delhi Police and posted the matter for hearing on July 4.
In his plea, Imam said there had been no meaningful progress in the proceedings in the six months since the Supreme Court's order and pointed out that he has spent nearly six years in custody. He argued that charges have yet to be framed despite the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
Imam further relied on subsequent Supreme Court rulings, including Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs NIA and Tasleem Ahmed vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), contending that they clarified the legal position on granting bail in UAPA cases involving extended periods of detention.
His application also stated that he was not in Delhi after the second week of January 2020 and was already in custody in another matter before the communal violence broke out in northeast Delhi in February that year.
Khalid's fresh plea similarly cites prolonged incarceration and delays in the trial process, noting that he too has spent close to six years behind bars without charges being framed.
According to the application, the trial is unlikely to begin anytime soon given the large number of accused persons, witnesses and prosecution documents involved in the case.
Khalid has also referred to observations made by the Supreme Court in a May 18 order in a terror-related matter, where a two-judge bench, while granting bail to an accused, underscored that anti-terror laws should not be used to justify indefinite detention. The plea contends that such subsequent judicial developments amount to a "change in circumstances", making a fresh bail application maintainable despite the apex court's earlier rejection.
The application further relies on Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India vs K A Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves vs State of Maharashtra, to argue that restrictions on bail under the UAPA cannot override constitutional guarantees where a trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period.
On January 5, the Supreme Court denied bail to Khalid and Imam in the case but granted relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
At the time, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria held that a prima facie case under the UAPA existed against Khalid and Imam. The court also observed that all accused could not be treated alike because of the differing levels of alleged involvement, referring to a "hierarchy of participation".
Khalid, Imam and several others have been charged under the UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being part of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi.
The violence, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
(With inputs from PTI)
