SC seeks Delhi Police reply on bail pleas of Imam, Khalid in 2020 riots conspiracy case

The petitioners — Imam, Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Shifa-ur-Rehman — are among nine accused whose bail pleas were rejected by the Delhi HC on September 2.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Police 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.

Supreme Court of India. (PTI)

A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria sought their responses by October 7, after the petitioners’ lawyers pointed out that they hope to be out before Diwali this year after almost five years of pre-trial incarceration.

At the outset, Justice Kumar apologised for not being able to take up the matter last Friday (September 19). He explained that the case could not proceed since the puisne judge of the bench, Justice Manmohan, had opted to recuse, citing his earlier association as an advocate in the chamber of senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who represents one of the petitioners.

Sibal appears for Khalid while senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represents Gulfishan Fatima. Senior counsel Siddharth Dave represents Imam in the case.

Singhvi told the bench that the petitioners were students who had been behind bars for over five years, and urged the court to consider their interim bail plea. He also pointed out that a formal application had been filed seeking such relief.

The petitioners also requested for an earlier hearing date. “Before Diwali, so that they can be out by Diwali. They are all there for more than five years,” Sibal submitted.

The development comes after two adjournments in recent weeks. On September 19, the case was listed before justices Kumar and Manmohan but could not be heard due to Justice Manmohan’s recusal. Earlier, on September 12, the hearing was deferred after Justice Kumar noted that the voluminous case records had reached their residences past midnight, leaving insufficient time for study.

The petitioners — Imam, Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Shifa-ur-Rehman — are among nine accused whose bail pleas were rejected by the Delhi high court on September 2. The court had termed their roles in the alleged conspiracy “prima facie grave,” upholding the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

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.

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 had noted that Imam and Khalid were the first to mobilise opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed in December 2019, through WhatsApp groups, pamphlets and speeches allegedly delivered on communal lines. Represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, Delhi Police described the duo as the “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy.

The high court argued that Imam’s speeches in Aligarh, Asansol and Chakand, and Khalid’s speech in Amravati on February 17, 2020 — where he referred to protests coinciding with then US President Donald Trump’s visit — were not isolated acts. It ruled that the absence of either man from riot sites was immaterial, since mobilisation and planning had already taken place. “The mere absence…a few weeks or days before the riots may not be sufficient to mitigate their role,” the HC bench had noted.

The accused, however, maintain that they had no part in any meetings where violence was planned and insist their detention violates the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. They have also sought parity with fellow 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 his Amravati speech was innocuous and unrelated to the violence that began a week later.

The high court, nonetheless, 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 underlined that while the right to protest is protected, conspiratorial violence cloaked as demonstrations cannot be permitted.