Delhi riots case: SC again adjourns bail hearing of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam

THe sublime margaret court on fri adjourned for the back clip in a row the hearing on the bail pleas of student activist Sharjeel Imam, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid, and three others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, after Justice Manmohan recused himself.When the matter was taken up by a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Manomhan, the briefing counsel appearing on behalf of Kapil Sibal informed the bench that Sibal was leading the arguments in the case. To be sure, Sibal does not appear before Justice Manmohan, who had begun his legal career as a junior in Sibal’s chamber. Soon thereafter, the court adjourned the hearing to September 22.However, it remains unclear whether the bail pleas will actually proceed on September 22, as the roster indicates that the same combination of justices Kumar and Manmohan is scheduled to constitute the bench on that date as well.The adjournment comes a week after the Justice Kumar-led bench had adjourned the hearing on September 12, observing that the voluminous case records had reached their residences past midnight and could not be examined in time.The petitioners before the bench — Imam, Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Shifa-ur-Rehman — are among nine accused whose bail pleas were dismissed by the Delhi high court on September 2. The high court had termed their roles in the conspiracy “prima facie grave” while rejecting their challenge under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represents Imam, while senior advocate Kapil Sibal appears for Khalid. Both their petitions argue that prolonged incarceration — Imam since January 2020 and Khalid since September 2020, amounts to punishment without trial, particularly as the trial remains far from conclusion with multiple supplementary charge sheets and dozens of witnesses yet to be examined.The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for fresh listing before an appropriate bench.On September 2, a high court bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur (since retired) dismissed the bail pleas of the nine accused persons, relying on what the investigators described as a coordinated conspiracy culminating in the riots that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured.The high court noted that both Imam and Khalid were the first to mobilise opposition after Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill in December 2019, through WhatsApp groups, pamphlets, and speeches allegedly delivered on communal lines. Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, had described them as the “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy.While Imam was in custody since January 28, 2020, and Khalid was not present in Delhi during the outbreak of violence, the high court held that their absence at riot sites was immaterial because the mobilisation and planning had already been carried out. “The mere absence…a few weeks or days before the riots may not be sufficient to mitigate their role,” the HC bench had noted.Delhi Police had earlier argued that Imam gave inflammatory speeches in Aligarh, Asansol and Chakand, while Khalid spoke in Amravati on February 17, 2020, urging protests on February 24 when US President Donald Trump began his state visit to India.The accused, however, argued before the high court that they had no role in any meetings where violence was allegedly planned, and that their prolonged detention violated the principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception. They sought parity with fellow student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021.Imam emphasised that he had been in custody since January 2020, weeks before the riots, and that his speeches had no connection with the violence. Khalid said his reference to Trump’s visit in a February 17, 2020, speech at Amravati was innocuous and unrelated to the violence that began a week later.The high court, however, rejected these arguments, stressing that unlike the limited roles of some co-accused who secured bail, Imam and Khalid’s involvement was prima facie more serious. It further underlined that while the right to protest is protected, conspiratorial violence cloaked as demonstrations cannot be permitted.