New Delhi: Activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and eight others, who are behind bars for last five years, were on Tuesday denied bail by the Delhi High Court in an anti-terror law case linked to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in the national capital.
“All the appeals are dismissed,” a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held while acting on the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed.
A different bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected the appeal of Tasleem Ahmed against a bail rejection order of the trial court.
Khalid, Imam and several others were booked under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the CAA and NRC.
The accused persons have been in jail since 2020 and they moved the high court against a trial court order dismissing their bail pleas.
The prosecution opposed the bail pleas saying it was not a case of spontaneous riots but a case where riots were “planned well in advance” with a “sinister motive” and “well-thought-out conspiracy”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the prosecution, then contended it was a conspiracy to defame India on a global level and merely citing long incarceration was no ground for bail.
He argued the intention behind the February 2020 riots was to globally defame the nation through a “well-planned and orchestrated” criminal conspiracy by the accused persons.
Delhi Police argued that it was not a spontaneous riot but a well-organised act planned in advance in the capital of the country, aimed at a particular day and time.
Imam’s counsel, however, argued he was “completely disconnected” with the place, time and co-accused persons, including Khalid.
Speeches and WhatsApp chats of Imam, who was arrested on August 25 2020, never called for any unrest, it was argued.
While challenging the bail rejection orders of the trial court, Imam, Khalid and others cited their long incarceration and parity with other co-accused who were granted bail.
The prosecution alleged Imam, in his public addresses, propagated the idea of chakka jam as the plan of action to paralyse the government while saying “confrontational violence” had to take place.
It was alleged the protests were part of a conspiracy of the accused persons to cause violence at the time of the visit of then US President Donald Trump.
Khalid, a former JNU student, was arrested by Delhi Police in September 2020 whereas Ahmed was arrested on June 24, 2020.
Haider was a Rashtriya Janata Dal’s (RJD) youth wing leader and Jamia Millia Islamia student who has been in custody since his arrest on April 1, 2020.
Fatima was a student activist who had organised the protest site in Seelampur and was a local resident. According to her lawyer, while she was present at the chakka jam held at Jafrabad, the same was peaceful. She was arrested on April 4, 2020.
‘United Against Hate’ founder Khalid Saifi, who was arrested on February 26, 2020, claimed he was merely present at the Jantar Mantar protest site.
The police arrested Ahmed, Rehman, Mohd Saleem and Athar on June 11, April 26, June 24 and June 29, 2020, respectively.
The bail pleas of Imam, Saifi, Fatima and others, were pending in the high court since 2022 and were heard by different benches from time to time.
All the accused persons denied the prosecution’s allegations.
Delhi Police opposed the bail applications of all accused, saying the communal violence of February 2020 was a case of “clinical and pathological conspiracy”.
Speeches by Khalid, Imam and co-accused created a sense of fear with their common pattern of reference to CAA-NRC, Babri mosque, triple talaq and Kashmir, the police alleged.
The police contended that in a case involving such “grave” offences, the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” could not be invoked.
It also denied any “attempt by the prosecution” to delay the trial court proceedings, saying the right to speedy trial was not a “free pass”.
