Supreme Court Adjourns Umar Khalid's Bail Plea in Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case; To Hear After Four Weeks

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi was hearing Khalid’s special leave petition challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to deny him bail last year.

Right at the outset, the bench today told Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the UAPA accused, that it would have to go through the evidence on record and examine each document in order to assess whether the ingredients of the charges levelled against Khalid in the chargesheet could be discerned. Justice Bose told the senior counsel -

"We will grant leave and fix it after two to three weeks. You file something on what is the evidence available insofar as offences under Chapters 4 and 6 [of the UAPA] are concerned, and how according to you, it's not matching...Now chargesheet has been submitted. We will have to match the ingredients of the offences with the charges."

"Your Lordships may have it after four weeks. In the meantime, my Constitution Bench [hearing] will also be over," Sibal agreed, before saying, "We have given the pages and everything. Besides the evidence, our first submission is Sections 16, 17, and 18 do not apply at all."

"We will have to verify that as well on the basis of the evidence," Justice Bose replied, before granting leave directing the matter to be relisted after four weeks. At the senior counsel's behest, the bench also directed the registry to provide a specific date after four weeks. Khalid's bail plea is now likely to be heard in October. 

This case has also witnessed the recusal of one of the judges, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, who was slated to hear it last month. The hearing has been adjourned five times since notice was issued by the top court in the activist's plea on May 18 – once on July 12 after the Delhi police sought more time to file a counter-affidavit, on July 24 after a letter of adjournment was circulated by Khalid's counsel, on August 9 after Justice Mishra recused himself, on August 18, when the matter was listed on a miscellaneous day, and again on September 5 at the behest of the appellant.

Khalid has spent over two years and eleven months under incarceration now.

Background

Khalid, a former scholar and researcher from Jawaharlal Nehru University, is one of the accused in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 North-East Delhi communal riots case. He has been accused along with 59 others, including Pinjra Tod members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.

Others who have been charge-sheeted in the case include former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Mohd Salim Khan, and Athar Khan.

Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam were the last to be charge-sheeted in the case. Zargar, Kalita, Narwal, Tanha, and Jahan have already been granted bail. Kalita, Narwhal, and Tanha were granted bail by a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani last year.

Khalid has been booked under Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Last year, in October, the Delhi High Court upheld a March 2022 order of a trial court denying Khalid bail. A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) were geared towards the 2020 North-East Delhi riots through various ‘conspiratorial meetings’ held from December 2019 till February 2020, some of which were also attended by Khalid.

In the order, the high court also took a serious view of Khalid using the words ‘inquilabli salam’ (revolutionary salute) and ‘krantikari istiqbal’ (revolutionary welcome) in a speech given in Amaravati in February 2020, considering it to be an incitement of violence. “Revolution by itself isn’t always bloodless, which is why it is contradistinctly used with the prefix - a ‘bloodless’ revolution. So, when we use the expression ‘revolution’, it is not necessarily bloodless,” the Delhi High Court observed. During the case, the bench also questioned the UAPA accused for using the world ‘jumla’ against the prime minister, remarking that there should be a ‘lakshman rekha’ for criticism.

Khalid challenged the Delhi High Court’s verdict before the Supreme Court and in May of this year, a bench headed by Justice Bopanna issued notice in his plea. Earlier that month, another bench of the apex court had dismissed Delhi police’s plea against a high court order granting bail to co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita.

Case Title

Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023