The Supreme Court on January 5 (Monday) denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court observed that the prosecution material showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
Meanwhile, the apex court granted bail to five other accused, stating that their roles stood on a different footing. The five accused are Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
Also Read | 'We are all thinking of you', New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani pens note for jailed activist Umar Khalid
Khalid and Imam can renew bail applications...
In regards to Khalid and Iman, the Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria stated that they could renew their bail applications after examination of protected witnesses or after one year from today.
The court also noted that the prosecution materials prima facie showed the duo's 'central and formative role' and 'involvement in planning and strategic direction beyond episodic and localised acts', which has in turn attracted strict threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
"Threshold under Section 43D(5) stands attracted...continued detention has not crossed constitutional impermissibility to override the statutory embargo as against them," the Court noted.
Strict conditions to 5 others granted bail
While granting bail to the five other accused, the top court laid 12 stringent conditions, including the caution that any misuse of liberty would lead to cancellation of bail. The Bench clarified that granting bail does not amount to dilution of allegations against them.
Also Read | Umar Khalid marks 5 years in jail as trial in 2020 Delhi Riots case yet to begin. Here’s a rundown
Umar and Imam 'stand at different footing...'
The court said that as per records, all the appellants do not stand on equal footing in terms of culpability. Given the hierarchy of participation of each, the bail applications need to be assessed independently and has its own merits. "Treating all accused identically would risk pretrial detention," the Bench said.
'Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused," the Bench noted.
Trial delay not trump card to grant bail
While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Kumar noted that for prosecutions under UAPA, delay in trial does not work as a 'trump card' to override statutory restrictions. The court acknowledged that prolonged incarceration raises constitutional concerns and held that Section 43D(5) does not oust judicial scrutiny.
Also Read | Umar Khalid gets interim bail to attend sister’s wedding
According to LiveLaw, judgment further held that Section 15 of the UAPA, which deals with the offence of terrorist acts, cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only acts of blatant violence. Apart from death or destruction, the provision encompasses acts that disrupt services and threaten the economy.
The pleas
The petitions arose from September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court that had denied bail to the accused. Khalid and Imam have been in custody under the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code for over five years in connection with the 2020 communal riots in Delhi.
