Delhi Riots: Court Allows Umar Khalid Two Weekly E-Mulakats With Family, Notes No Jail Rule Violation In Six Years
Khalid contended that ever since he was lodged in jail, he had been permitted two e-mulakats every week.
A Delhi Court has allowed former JNU student Umar Khalid, an accused in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, to continue availing two e-mulakats per week with his family.Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts noted that Khalid has been using the facility for the last six years without violating any provision of the Delhi Prison Rules....
A Delhi Court has allowed former JNU student Umar Khalid, an accused in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, to continue availing two e-mulakats per week with his family.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts noted that Khalid has been using the facility for the last six years without violating any provision of the Delhi Prison Rules.
The Court passed the order on Khalid's application challenging the curtailment of his e-mulakat facility from two video calls per week to one since May.
Khalid contended that ever since he was lodged in jail, he had been permitted two e-mulakats every week.
His counsel argued that the facility was abruptly reduced to one e-mulakat from May despite there being no violation of prison rules on his part that could justify such curtailment.
Opposing the plea, the Tihar Jail authorities submitted that under the applicable rules, Khalid was entitled to only one e-mulakat per week and, therefore, the earlier practice of allowing two had been discontinued.
Accepting Khalid's plea, the court noted that he had been availing two e-mulakats every week for the last six years and had not violated any provision of the Delhi Prison Rules during this period.
“Since the applicant has been using two e-mulakats in a week for last six years and has not violated any rule of the Delhi Prisons Rule, the applicant is allowed to have two e-mulakats per week for the purpose of talking to his mother and other family members,” the Court ordered.
Recently, the judge denied regular bail to Khalid on July 04. The Court had said that the judgment of Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi has already been referred to a larger bench by hte Supreme Court and as such unless the issue is settled, the Court cannot consider the bail application of Khalid on any ground.
The judge had added that he has no option but to follow the Supreme Court's judgment denying bail to Khalid.
Khalid filed regular bail plea after a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court questioned the ruling denying bail to him. On January 5 the Supreme Court had granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed; it had however denied bail to Umar and Sharjeel.
Thereafter a coordinate division bench led by Justice BV Nagarathana had expressed reservations about the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State saying that it did not properly follow the judgment delivered by a three-judge bench in 2021 in Union of India v. KA Najeebwhich recognised long delay in trial as a ground for bail in cases under UAPA.
In May, the division bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar, which had rejected Khalid and Sharjeel's bail pleas, while observing that there was a "perceived conflict" among different benches regarding the understanding of the 3-judge bench judgment in Union of India v KA Najeeb, referred the issue to a larger bench.
FIR 59 of 2020 is being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell. The case has been registered under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.