A Delhi Court on Saturday (July 4) reserved its verdict on bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam bail in the case alleging larger conspiracy into the commission of 2020 North East Delhi riots registered under UAPA.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts after hearing the parties said, "I will try to pass order today. If not today then it will be passed on Monday".

Appearing for Khalid, senior advocate Trideep Pais recounted the events leading upto the present bail plea. He said that the Supreme Court had while refusing to grant bail to Khalid had said that for one year Umar and Sharjeel cannot apply for bail but in the meantime protected witnesses should be examined.

"If not examined, whichever happens first, if one year is gone then you can apply (for bail) or if witnesses are examined...You can be in jail for years without bail, it is only when the court decides that you are important enough, you will get bail otherwise you will not get bail," he said.

He thereafter referred to Supreme Court's order granting interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi for six months, while referring to a larger bench the 'perceived conflict' in judgments on UAPA bail when trial is delayed.

Pais while reading Tasleem Ahmed judgment said, "Trial is not likely to conclude immediately. These are not my words".

He said that there was nothing alleged against Umar other than statements. "They don't lead to recovery of money or ammunition or anything. Other than statements there is nothing against me," he said.

He said that what the Supreme Court did in Tasleem Ahmed's case is noted by High Court division bench in a UAPA appeal where waging war and gathering money for terrorism is alleged.

Pais emphasized, "I am in custody continuously. Even when I applied for SLP it continued. Change of circumstances in law, your honour has seen those orders. If i have to make submissions on merits, i am ready to make. But long and short is that there is no recovery, no statement leading to any discovery, I am not present, no violence alleged, there is only one video which is of 17 days prior in Amravati. I submit that I am entitled to bail".

Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, advocate Talib Mustafa argued that the petitioner has already undergone substantial incarceration and no likelihood of trial ending anytime soon. He said that when other accused have been given relief then that benefit must accrue to Sharjeel as well.

Opposing the bail pleas, the counsel for the prosecution argued, "The prayer for bail by both accused, shall be only upon, not prior to embargo, only upon examination of protected witnesses or upon expiry of one year of the order. They also filed review, it was dismissed".

For context, Khalid and Sharjeel had filed plea seeking review of Supreme Court's January 5 order, which was dismissed.

The counsel thus said that the findings of the Supreme Court remain and that as of today, the order is "set in stone"; he added that the directions of embargo by Supreme Court remain binding.

"If they are aggrieved, they could have approached Supreme Court and sought clarification that after Gulfisha, these judgments have come. The appropriate forum was Supreme Court," the counsel said adding that the trial court cannot add to the order as there was a limitation.

The court thereafter reserved its verdict.

Background

Imam and Khalid have filed regular bail pleas after a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court questioned the ruling denying bail to them. 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 Najeeb which 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.

Imam's bail pleas highlights that despite the passage of more than six months since the Supreme Court's judgment, there has been no meaningful progress in the trial proceedings.

It is his case that with arguments on charge still remaining incomplete, Imam continues to undergo prolonged incarceration of nearly six years in the case.

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.