Delhi Court seeks police reply on fresh bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam

A Delhi court sought Delhi Police's response to fresh bail pleas filed by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court issued notices and scheduled the next hearing for July 4 amid ongoing trial delays

New Delhi: A court on Saturday sought a response from the Delhi Police on fresh bail pleas filed by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 riots. The court issued notice on the bail applications and directed the Delhi Police to file its reply. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 4.

The two accused have moved regular bail pleas in the case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions.

---

In his plea, Imam contended that despite the passage of more than six months since the Supreme Court rejected his bail application in January, there has been no meaningful progress in the trial. The application stated that arguments on the question of framing of charges are yet to conclude and that Imam continues to remain behind bars for nearly six years in the case.

Khalid has also sought regular bail before the trial court. Both applications were taken up together, following which the court sought the stand of the Delhi Police.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

At the same time, the apex court granted bail to five other accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

More recently, the Supreme Court granted six months’ interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Observing that different Benches of the apex court had expressed divergent views on the interpretation of the three-judge Bench ruling in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an appropriate Bench.

The order came after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that there appeared to be a divergence in the manner in which coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court were applying the K.A. Najeeb judgment while dealing with bail pleas under stringent statutes such as the UAPA and the NIA Act.

The Justice Aravind Kumar-led Bench also took note of the subsequent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency (NIA), where another coordinate Bench expressed reservations over certain aspects of the ruling that had denied bail to Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution’s case, the apex court granted interim bail to Ahmed and Saifi for six months, observing that they had undergone substantial incarceration and that the trial was not likely to conclude in the immediate future.