Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Police Response on Bail Pleas in 2020 Riots 'Larger Conspiracy' Case

In a significant development concerning the contentious 2020 Delhi riots case, the Supreme Court of India has formally sought a response from the Delhi Police on the bail petitions of prominent activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, alongside others implicated in the alleged 'larger conspiracy.' This pivotal legal move by the apex court signals renewed scrutiny of a case that has drawn widespread attention and debate.

A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M.

Trivedi issued notices to the Delhi Police, directing them to submit their reply within a four-week timeframe. The petitioners, including Khalid and Imam, are facing grave charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a law often criticized for its severe bail provisions. Their appeals to the Supreme Court follow the Delhi High Court's earlier rejection of their bail applications, which underscored the seriousness of the charges and the High Court's interpretation of the UAPA's constraints on granting bail in terror-related cases.

The 2020 Delhi riots, a dark chapter in the city's recent history, unfolded in North East Delhi in February of that year.

The communal violence resulted in the tragic loss of over 50 lives and left hundreds injured, causing extensive damage to property and deepening societal fissures. Delhi Police's investigations subsequently led to charges against several individuals, including Khalid and Imam, for allegedly orchestrating and instigating these riots as part of a meticulously planned conspiracy.

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, has been in custody since September 2020.

His bail plea, and that of Sharjeel Imam, another academic and activist, have been at the forefront of discussions surrounding civil liberties and the application of anti-terror laws. The High Court, in its previous order, had stated that there were 'reasonable grounds' to believe the allegations against Khalid were prima facie true, a crucial factor under UAPA Section 43D(5) which makes bail extremely difficult to obtain.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notices indicates a thorough examination of the High Court's reasoning and the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Legal experts suggest that this could potentially pave the way for a re-evaluation of the bail criteria applied in UAPA cases, especially those involving allegations of conspiracy rather than direct acts of violence. As the legal battle continues, all eyes will be on the Delhi Police's response and the Supreme Court's subsequent deliberations, which hold significant implications for the accused and the broader discourse on justice and dissent in India.