Delhi police oppose Umar Khalid bail in 2020 riots case; court reserves order

THe new delhi constabulary on sabbatum opposed the bond applications moved by pupil activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, arguing that there were no changes in circumstances and that both of them occupied a senior and significant role in the conspiracy, distinct from rest of the co-accused persons.The submissions were made before additional sessions judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma courts by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey. The court reserved its orders.Both Khalid and Imam in their bail applications moved last month, have cited a change in circumstances, highlighting the judgment pronounced on May 18 by a Supreme Court bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while granting bail to Jammu and Kashmir resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).The apex court had expressed “serious reservations” about the reasoning adopted earlier this year in the January 5 verdict, stating that it failed to correctly apply the binding principles laid down by a larger three-judge bench in Union of India Vs KA Najeeb (2021), which recognised that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The court also took exception to the direction that Khalid and Imam could revive their plea for bail only after examination of protected witnesses or after one year, whichever was earlier.Opposing Khalid’s bail plea, the prosecutor said that the alleged “change of circumstances” as pleaded by him, does not constitute a substantial or material change warranting reconsideration of bail.The prosecutor submitted, “Successive bail applications are maintainable only upon demonstration of a substantial and material change in circumstances. No such change has occurred after dismissal of the applicant’s Special Leave Petition and Review Petition”.The prosecutor argued that Khalid’s reliance on certain subsequent judgements and observations made in other cases did not constitute a change in circumstance.Also Read:Can CAG audit privately run discoms? The question before Supreme Court in Delhi disputeThe prosecution said that the trial court could not effectively review the Supreme Court’s judgement of January 5, which denied bail to Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five co-accused, and it held that they would be at a liberty to renew their prayer for bail upon completion of the examination of protected witnesses or upon completion of one year from the date of the order, whichever is earlier.Arguing on merits, the prosecutor said the allegations against Khalid were grave and concern a larger conspiracy leading to large-scale communal violence.He said that multiple courts have earlier found the statutory restrictions under section 43D(5) of UAPA applicable to Khalid’s case.The prosecution said, “The prosecution evidence is extensive and includes protected witnesses and electronic evidence. The possibility of influencing witnesses, directly or indirectly, cannot be ignored”.In response to Imam’s plea, the prosecution said that the Supreme Court’s January 5 decision denying him bail conscious held that the applicant “occupied a distinct, senior and primary role of ideological and strategic centrality in conceptualising and executing the overarching criminal conspiracy that culminated in the Northeast Delhi riots of 2020”. Imam cannot claim parity with other co-accused, the SPP said.Police said that the Supreme Court had, after deep architectural scrutiny of the chargesheet and electronic logs, has already delivered a clear judicial finding that the accusations against the accused were prima facie true.“The statutory embargo under section 43D(5) operates with absolute rigour and completely strips the court of any residual discretion to grant bail,” the prosecutor submitted.The prosecutor said that Imam’s heavy reliance on an interim order of May 22 passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, Tasleem Ahmed vs State, was entirely misplaced.“A referral order by a bench to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger bench is not a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, until the larger bench formally recalibrates/modifies the law,” police said.Police said that Imam’s defense that he was taken into custody on January 28, 2020, in another case and was absent from Delhi during the peak violence in February 2020 “is a recycled argument already rejected by the apex court”.“The applicant commands a vast network of student activists and radicalised cadres; his release at this vulnerable pre-charge stage will fatally compromise witness safety, induce systemic intimidation, and completely derail the fairness of the impending trial,” police added.