NEW DELHI, Jan 5 (INS): In a landmark ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court denied
bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are booked under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case.
While the duo will remain in custody, the court granted bail to five other
co-accused, including Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider, citing a lack of uniform
culpability across all defendants.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria delivered the judgment
after reserving it in December. The court emphasized that in cases involving
the stringent UAPA, each application must be assessed on its individual merits.
"The record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on equal footing
as regards culpability," the Bench observed. "The hierarchy of participation
requires the court to assess each application individually."
The court concluded that the prosecution had presented a prima facie case against
Khalid and Imam, placing them on a "qualitatively different footing" compared
to the others. Consequently, the statutory threshold for bail under UAPA remained
an obstacle for them.
In a significant move for the other appellants, the court granted bail to Gulfisha
Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
The Bench noted that Article 21 of the Constitution requires the State to justify
prolonged pre-trial custody. While granting them relief, the court imposed 12
stringent conditions and warned that the trial court could cancel bail if any
conditions were violated.
Background of the case
The case stems from FIR 59/2020, filed by the Delhi Police Special Cell, alleging
a premeditated conspiracy to incite communal violence in North East Delhi in
February 2020. The riots, which coincided with the visit of then-US President
Donald Trump, resulted in 53 deaths and hundreds of injuries.
Umar Khalid has been in judicial custody since September 2020. His legal team,
led by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, had argued that over five years of incarceration
without a trial amounted to a "pre-trial conviction." Conversely, the Delhi
Police argued that the accused were "masterminds" who used anti-CAA protests
as a "radicalizing catalyst" to orchestrate a "regime change operation."
To prevent further delays, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to ensure
the examination of protected witnesses is carried out without interruption.
The court explicitly stated that the trial should not be unnecessarily prolonged
and granted Khalid and Imam the liberty to move new bail applications after
the completion of witness examinations or after one year.
Defense’s argument on judicial delay
In the hearings leading up to the ruling, the legal team for Umar Khalid—spearheaded
by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal—centered their defense on the constitutional
tension between the stringent requirements of the UAPA and the fundamental right
to a speedy trial.
The three primary pillars of the defence’s argument regarding the prolonged
delay are:
The "Pre-Trial Conviction" doctrine: The defence argued that Khalid’s
five-year incarceration without the commencement of a trial effectively serves
as a "pre-trial conviction." They cited various Supreme Court precedents (notably
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb) which establish that even under UAPA, constitutional
courts can grant bail if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable
timeframe.
Voluminous Evidence and "Trial Inertia": Sibal pointed out that the
prosecution has listed over 700 witnesses and submitted thousands of pages of
digital and documentary evidence. At the current pace of the Special Court,
the defense estimated that the trial could take another 10 to 15 years to reach
a verdict. They argued that keeping an individual in jail for a decade based
on a prima facie allegation violates the "innocent until proven guilty" bedrock
of Indian law.
The "Vague Conspiracy" Challenge: The defense contended that the delay
is exacerbated by the "nebulous nature" of the conspiracy charges. They argued
that the prosecution has continuously moved supplementary chargesheets, effectively
moving the goalposts and making it impossible for the defense to prepare for
a trial that hasn't truly begun.
The prosecution’s counter-response
The Delhi Police, represented by the Solicitor General, countered that the
delay was a result of the "complexity of the conspiracy" and multiple interim
applications filed by the accused themselves. They maintained that the gravity
of the offense—allegedly undermining the sovereignty of India—outweighed the
period of custody.
) 
