Umar Khalid moves SC against HC order denying him bail

In his petition, filed through advocate N Sai Vinod, Khalid challenged the high court’s 133-page judgment that found a prima facie case under UAPA against him.

Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, challenging a September 2 order by the Delhi High Court that denied him relief.

Umar Khalid (Vipin Kumar/HT PHOTO)

Khalid, who has spent nearly four years in prison under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), is facing charges of being part of the larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi. The riots, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), left 53 dead and over 700 injured.

In his petition, filed through advocate N Sai Vinod, Khalid challenged the high court’s 133-page judgment that found a prima facie case under UAPA against him. The high court held that Khalid was one among the main conspirator in mobilising opposition after Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) in 2019, forming WhatsApp groups, distributing pamphlets and delivering speeches “on communal lines.”

Two other co-accused – student activist Sharjeel Imam and activist Gulfisha Fatima – have already moved the Supreme Court against the same order, arguing that their prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment before trial. They stressed that systemic delays make an early conclusion of the trial improbable, making bail essential to preserve the principle of liberty.

The Delhi Police allege Khalid was among the “intellectual architects” of the violence, conspiring with student activist Sharjeel Imam and others to orchestrate unrest timed with then US President Donald Trump’s state visit.

Even as Khalid’s appeal reached the Supreme Court, arguments continued at Karkardooma Court on framing of charges. Khalid’s counsel, senior advocate Trideep Pais, contended that Khalid cannot be charged under UAPA for his Amravati speech, which he insisted was not an incitement to “imminent lawless action.”

Pais told additional sessions judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai that if the law on incitement, as laid down by the top court, is to be taken, an act or speech should be a “spark in a powder keg”. “The violence should be an immediate and direct result of my speech or there should be imminent lawless action… after I speak there should be chaos in society.”

He cited the Supreme Court’s precedent in NIA v Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), which requires a direct nexus between speech and violence. “There is no nexus between my speech and the match that I lit,” Pais said, seeking Khalid’s discharge.

He added there is no physical evidence such as call detail records, recordings, weapons or notes to link Khalid to any violence. “I was not present in the city at the time of the violence and the charge sheet against me is based on hearsay statements of witnesses who have not seen me cause violence,” said Pais, who will continue his arguments on Thursday.

The Delhi Police, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, maintain that Khalid and Imam were central to a “meticulously planned conspiracy”, and were the “intellectual architects.” They point to “overwhelming” evidence, including witness statements, digital records and purported strategy meetings, to argue Khalid’s role was not peripheral but instrumental in triggering unrest through the “chakka jam” plan.

The police have alleged that the timing of protests during Trump’s visit was deliberate, meant to showcase India’s alleged discrimination against minorities to the international community.

The Delhi high court, in its order, had dismissed Khalid’s bail plea alongside those of Imam and seven others, calling their roles “prima facie grave.” The bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur (since retired) stressed that Khalid’s February 17, 2020, Amravati speech “urging protests on February 24” coincided with the US president’s visit, allegedly to spark violence and draw global attention. The above role, as assigned to the appellants by the prosecution, “cannot be lightly brushed aside,” the court had held.

This is Khalid’s second attempt at bail before the Supreme Court. In 2022, the trial court denied him relief, and the Delhi high court upheld that order. Khalid approached the top court in early 2024 but withdrew his plea, citing a “change in circumstances.” He later moved a fresh bail application before the trial court, which was rejected in May 2024, leading to the present appeal.