Delhi High Court Upholds Bail Denial for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in Riots Conspiracy

In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has affirmed the earlier decision to deny bail to prominent activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, along with several others, in connection with the larger conspiracy case surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots. The ruling underscores the serious nature of the charges, particularly those leveled under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, delivered the verdict, which maintains that there is a prima facie case against the accused, suggesting their involvement in the alleged conspiracy that led to widespread violence and loss of life in the national capital.

The court's decision is a crucial moment in the ongoing legal proceedings, signaling the judiciary's approach to cases involving allegations of orchestrating public disorder.

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, and Sharjeel Imam, an activist and scholar, were arrested in September 2020 and August 2020, respectively, and have been in judicial custody since.

They are among several individuals accused of being key conspirators behind the communal riots that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020, claiming over 50 lives and causing extensive damage to property.

The prosecution has consistently argued that the riots were not spontaneous but were part of a meticulously planned conspiracy to destabilize the government, primarily in response to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

They have presented extensive evidence, including call detail records, WhatsApp chats, and witness statements, to bolster their claims of a pre-meditated plot involving various protest groups and individuals.

During the bail hearings, the defense lawyers for Khalid and Imam vigorously contended that their clients were merely exercising their constitutional right to protest peacefully and that their speeches and actions had been misinterpreted or selectively used to frame them.

They argued that there was no direct evidence linking them to the actual violence and that their continued detention violated their fundamental rights.

However, the High Court, after carefully reviewing the material on record and the arguments presented by both sides, found sufficient grounds to conclude that a prima facie case under the UAPA provisions could be established.

This determination is critical, as Section 43D(5) of the UAPA places a high bar for bail, stipulating that bail cannot be granted if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

The court's judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for the other co-accused in the case and will undoubtedly be closely watched as the trial progresses.

The denial of bail at this stage means that Khalid, Imam, and the others will remain in custody while the protracted legal battle continues, highlighting the complexities and challenges inherent in prosecuting cases under anti-terror laws amidst allegations of political dissent.