Supreme Court Intervenes: Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots Case Surface After Five-Year Detention

In a significant development concerning the protracted 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Supreme Court has at last intervened, issuing notices on the bail pleas of prominent accused individuals, including student activist Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam. This crucial step comes after impassioned arguments from the defence counsel, who underscored the profound injustice of a near five-year wait for these cases to reach a substantive stage.

The apex court, taking serious note of the duration of their pre-trial detention, has called upon the Delhi Police to submit their responses by August 5.

This directive marks a pivotal moment for the accused, who face stringent charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with allegations of orchestrating the riots that rocked the national capital.

For years, the accused have navigated a challenging legal landscape, with the Delhi High Court previously denying their bail applications.

The High Court had, in its rulings, observed that the charges against them were 'prima facie true' and of a grave nature, a stance that has kept them incarcerated. However, the Supreme Court's decision to issue notices signals a willingness to re-examine these foundational arguments and the broader implications of prolonged imprisonment without trial.

The petitioners, represented by a formidable legal team including Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Dave, have consistently argued that the delay itself constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights.

Their pleas challenge the High Court's earlier orders, with Umar Khalid's appeal specifically targeting the October 2022 rejection and Sharjeel Imam's challenging the October 2023 decision. Other significant petitioners whose pleas are now under the Supreme Court's scrutiny include Saleem Khan, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, and Shadab Ahmed.

The Supreme Court's intervention draws parallels with its past decisions in the same case, where it had granted bail to other co-accused, namely Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha.

These earlier instances set a precedent, emphasizing that even in severe UAPA cases, the right to speedy justice and considerations of prolonged detention must be weighed.

The FIR 101/2020, central to this intricate legal battle, posits a sweeping conspiracy theory behind the February 2020 Delhi riots.

The prosecution alleges that the riots were not spontaneous but a pre-planned act of terror, an assertion vehemently contested by the defence. As the Supreme Court delves into these petitions, the legal community and civil rights activists will be closely watching, hoping for a resolution that balances national security concerns with the imperative of individual liberty and the right to a fair, timely trial.