Student activists Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have approached a Delhi court seeking bail in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case registered under UAPA.
The matters came up before the Additional Sessions Judge Dr Sumedh Sethi of the Karkardooma Court, who said that the bail pleas filed by both Khalid and Imam will be heard on July 4. They have sought response of the Delhi Police. Imam and Khalid filed the bail pleas after a Supreme Court bench questioned the interpretation adopted by the apex court in denying them bail.
Imam and Khalid have filed regular bail pleas after a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court questioned the ruling denying bail to them.Imam's application also highlights that despite the passage of more than 6 months since the Supreme Court’s judgment denying them bail, there has been no meaningful progress in the trial proceedings, with arguments on charge still remaining incomplete.
He has argued that he has been in jail for nearly 6 years in the case. It is his case that with arguments on charge still remaining incomplete, Imam continues to undergo prolonged incarceration of nearly six years in the case. FIR 59 of 2020 is being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell. The case has been registered under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.
Pertinently, Supreme Court on May 22 referred to a larger Bench the legal questions recently raised on the correctness of its earlier judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case.The reference to larger Bench was made by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale, while granting interim bail today to two other Delhi riots accused, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, for a six-month period. During the hearing,The Justice Nagarathna Bench opined that bail should be the rule and jail the exception even in UAPA cases.
It also said that the Umar Khalid bail denial order appeared to be in conflict with the principles laid down in an earlier judgment in KA Najeeb case in which it was held that prolonged delays in trial was a ground to grant bail in UAPA cases regardless of stringent tests for bail in UAPA cases.
Follow us
