Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha & Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 9) reserved judgment on the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria today concluded the hearing in the petitions filed against the September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court denying them bail. They have been under custody for over five years in a case in which they are facing serious allegations of committing offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Petitioners' submissionsThe petitioners mostly argued on the delay and the unlikelihood of the commencement of the trial. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha Fatima), Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Umar Khalid, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for Sharjeel Imam) argued that there is no proof of violence that they instigated the riots even after five years have passed.Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi(for Gulfisha) told the Court that Gulfisha has been in custody under 6 years now and is the only lady who has not been granted bail for allegations similar to and much lesser than those attributed to co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail as early as 2021. He also submitted that the "great argument" of regime change nowhere appears in the main chargesheet and the four supplementary chargesheet, the latest of which was filed in 2023.Singhvi remarked that her bail application was listed 90 times, 25 times the matter was not taken up due to the unavailability of the bench and 26 times, the matter was renotified. He termed this a "caricature" of the justice system and averred that no public interest would be served by keeping the 32-year-old lady in custody that long.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Umar Khalid, underscored that he was not present in the Delhi when the riots happened in February 2020. The speech cited by the prosecution, which was made in Amaravati, was in fact appealing for a Gandhian form of non-violent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. During the hearing, Khalid's speech was played by the petitioner's side in the Court. "These are students, they agitate wrongly or rightly. In younger days, even we used to agitate, and if we protest, there is no use of putting me in jail or convicting me. You can't keep me incarcerated for protesting," Sibal said. He said protests like chakka jam and rail roko are very common in India during popular agitations, and even if they fall outside the strict letter of law, they cannot be termed as 'terrorist acts' under the UAPA. Reference was also made to the judgments in Vernon and Shoma Sen judgments where the Court adopted a liberal approach in UAPA cases to grant bail.Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for Sharjeel Imam) submitted that for the speeches of Imam, which were played by the ASG in open court, he has already been prosecuted in separate cases. He underscored that Imam was in custody since January 2020, a month before the riots, for those speeches. Those speeches can at most be covered under Section 13 of UAPA, but they can't be a terrorist act under Section 15. He added that there has to be something 'more' than just the speech to prosecute him for the larger conspiracy in which he was not even physically present, as he was in police custody under another FIR. He also objected to the Imam being labelled as an "intellectual terrorist" and "anti-national" by the Delhi Police and the State. Dave submitted that, like others, Imam too has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Senior Advocate Salman Khursid (for Shifa Ur Rehman) reiterated that, at worst, the allegation against Rehman is that he misused his position as the President of AAJMI to receive funds to support the protests. However, there has been no recovery of the said alleged amount. Senior Advocate Siddhartha Agarwal (for Meeran Haider) made rejoinder arguments on delay and parity. He submitted that there has been no delay on the part of the accused persons. He submitted that the arguments on charge was supposed to begin in September 2023 but the petitioners asked for an adjournment because the prosecution hadn't completed their investigation. It was only in September 2024 that the prosecution submitted that the investigation is completed and the arguments on the charge can begin. Agarwal said that this delay of one year is attributable to the prosecution only. As for the accused Shadab Ahmed, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra very briefly submitted that the CDR shows the accused was not there at the protest site, but after a year, the Delhi police changed its stand and accused Ahmed of being one of the conspirators. Advocate Gautam Khazanchi for Mohd Saleem cited the judgment in Shaheen Welfare Association, which addressed the issue regarding prolonged detention of undertrials under the draconian Terrorist and...

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha & Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags