Blitz Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on January 5 refused to grant bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, reported IANS.
However, the apex court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, all of whom have been in custody for more than five years.
Pronouncing the judgment, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale said that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, thereby attracting the statutory bar to bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). At this juncture, the Bench observed that the prosecution evidence and other material “does not justify their enlargement on bail”, adding that the record suggested their involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and issuance of strategic directions.
The Bench said it was necessary to examine each bail application independently, since the record disclosed that the appellants did not all stand on equal footing with respect to culpability. “The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually,” the court said, holding that Umar and Sharjeel stood on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused.
Earlier, on December 10, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on the batch of special leave petitions (SLPs) challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail to the accused in the 2020 riots “larger conspiracy” case.
Opposing the bail pleas, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, had contended that the violence was not a spontaneous communal clash but a “well-designed, wellcrafted, orchestrated and preplanned” attack on the sovereignty of the nation.
“This was not a spontaneous act of violence; this was an attack against the sovereignty of the nation,” the SG had argued, relying on speeches, WhatsApp chats and other material to claim a “clear and discernible attempt to divide the society on communal lines”.
He had argued that the delay in the trial proceedings was attributable to the accused since they were “not cooperating” and “each of them argued for 4-5 days for opposing framing of charges”. “Now, in all cases where it’s difficult to defend on facts, the mechanism is to delay the trial and not to go into the merits and say ‘give me bail’. This has become a pattern,” SG Mehta added.
