Delhi riots case: Four accused walk free after Supreme Court bail

Four accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case were released from jail after the Supreme Court granted them bail, subject to strict conditions. Congress activist Gulfisha Fatima and others walked free following verification of sureties.

New Delhi: Four of the accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case walked out of jail on Wednesday, hours after a court here issued their release orders following bail from the Supreme Court.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai had accepted the bail bonds of Rs 2 lakh each along with two local sureties of the like amount furnished by Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman and Mohd Saleem Khan and issued their release orders.

The fifth accused, Shadab Ahmad, who was also among those granted bail by the apex court on Monday, did not appear before the court to furnish his bail bonds.

Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman and Meeran Haider were released from the Tihar jail on Wednesday night, while Mohd Saleem Khan walked out of Mandoli Jail, jail officials said.

It was an emotional reunion as Gulfisha was greeted by her relatives with garlands and sweets. Family members embraced her amid scenes of joy and relief.

Earlier on Tuesday, the court had ordered the Delhi Police to do the verification of documents and sureties submitted by the accused, leading to a delay in their release by a day.

The release order was issued after the Delhi Police submitted the verification reports of all bond sureties and documents filed by the accused in the court.

Meanwhile, another accused has now filed a fresh bail application in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, contending that he is facing similar charges as Mohd Saleem Khan and seeking parity.

The bail application was filed by Salim Malik alias Munna, one of the 11 alleged organisers and speakers of the anti-CAA/NRC meeting against whom the court had framed charges under the offence of criminal conspiracy.

The applicant has contended that the Supreme Court had on Monday granted bail to another accused facing similar charges and that he stands on the same footing.

It said the case by the prosecution against Malik only situates him “as a local operative associated with meetings at the Chand Bagh protest site”, which is as similar to co-accused Saleem Khan.

The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi broke out during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), leaving 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

The Supreme Court had on Monday denied relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, observing that a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was made out against them, but granted bail to the five other accused, citing hierarchy of participation.

The court has described the grant of bail as a “calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion”, subject to stringent conditions.

Of the 20 accused named in the case, two are still absconding, and the remaining 18 had applied for bail in the case. Out of 18, seven are still in prison — Salim Malik, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, former Aam Aadmi Party leader Tahir Hussain, Athar Khan, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.

The top court had in its Monday order imposed 11 conditions while granting bail to the five accused.

If the conditions are violated, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail after hearing the accused, the apex court had said.

It had ordered them to execute a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two local sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

It also directed them to remain within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and not leave its territorial limits without prior permission of the trial court.

Any travel request shall disclose reasons, and such prayer/request shall be considered by the trial court strictly on its merits, the bench said.

Additionally, the court ordered the five accused to surrender their passports and directed them to furnish their current residential addresses, contact numbers, and e-mail addresses to the investigating officer and the trial court.

The respective counsel for the accused moved an application before the court seeking three to four days to submit the details.

They submitted that the mobile phones of the accused had not been functional for a long period and assured the court that the details would be furnished once access is restored.

The court also directed that the accused cannot directly or indirectly contact, influence, intimidate or attempt to contact any witness or any person connected to the proceedings, nor associate with or participate in the activities of any group or organisation linked to the present FIR.