New Delhi [India], January 6 (ANI): Observing that the material placed on record by the prosecution indicates key involvement of Jawaharlal Nehru University students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam to plan, mobilise and strategically direct the alleged 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy, beyond isolated or localised acts, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant the accused bail, while upholding the constitutional validity of their prolonged detention.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria said that the material against the two men, primarily accused in the conspiracy case, considered on face value as required at this stage, does not justify their enlargement on bail.
“This Court is satisfied that the prosecution material, taken at face value as required at this stage, discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP… Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are in the alleged conspiracy. The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts,” the Court noted.
“The statutory threshold under Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, therefore stands attracted qua these appellants. While the period of incarceration undergone by these appellants is substantial and has been duly considered, the Court is not persuaded that, on the present record, continued detention has crossed the threshold of constitutional impermissibility so as to override the statutory embargo,” it added.
The Court was pronouncing its ruling on the bail pleas of seven people accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in the 2020 Delhi riots case. The tragic event shook the national capital by killing 53 people and leaving more than 900 injured.
As regards the other five persons — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — accused in the conspiracy, the Supreme Court granted them liberty by observing that their continued incarceration, considering their roles as per the material on record, is not essential for the conduct of a fair trial, provided strict conditions are imposed upon their release.
However, the Court clarified that the grant of bail to these accused does not dilute the gravity of the allegations nor amount to any finding on guilt. Rather, “it represents a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion, structured to preserve both liberty of the individual and security of the nation.”
Taking into account national security, public order, and the integrity of the trial process, the Court imposed numerous conditions on their bail, including the furnishing of personal bonds of Rs 2 lakh each, with two local sureties, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Additionally, the five accused persons shall remain within the NCT of Delhi and shall not leave without prior court permission. The Court further directed them to surrender their passports (or file an affidavit if none exists) and furnish updated residential and contact details, with prior intimation for any change.
“Each of the appellants, namely Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed shall personally appear twice a week, that is on Monday and Thursday, between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, before the Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110001, and mark their attendance,” the Court said.
The Station House Officer shall maintain a separate register of attendance in respect of each of these appellants and shall furnish a monthly compliance report to the Trial Court, which shall be placed on the main record of the case.
The Court also directed the accused persons not to contact, influence or intimidate any witness or person connected with the proceedings, nor associate with any group or organisation linked to the case. They must fully cooperate with the trial, appear on all dates of hearing unless exempted, avoid any conduct that delays proceedings, and maintain peace and good behaviour.
Moreover, the Court observed that any breach of these conditions or misuse of liberty would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail from the Trial Court after hearing the appellants.
While concluding its decision, the Court observed that though personal liberty is guaranteed under the Constitution, it cannot be conceived as an absolute entitlement detached from the security of the society in which it operates.
“The sovereignty, integrity, and security of the nation, as well as the preservation of public order, are not abstract concerns; rather, they are constitutional values which Parliament is entitled to protect through law,” the Court observed.
Explaining the different outcomes for the seven accused persons, the Court stated that criminal law does not mandate identical results merely because allegations arise from the same case. Those alleged to have led unlawful or terrorist activity stand on a different legal footing from those whose involvement is at a different level. “To disregard such distinctions would itself result in arbitrariness,” it said.
In view of the nature of the case and the prolonged incarceration already undergone, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to conduct the trial expeditiously, particularly the examination of prosecution and protected witnesses. The prosecution was also directed to ensure the presence of witnesses on scheduled dates, and the Trial Court was granted liberty to regulate proceedings to prevent delay.
The Court had reserved its decision in the case on December 10 after hearing all parties.
During hearings, counsel for the petitioners argued that the accused had been in custody for over five years with no assurance as to when trial would commence. They also contended that no proof of violence instigating the riots had emerged despite five years having passed.
Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas, arguing that the alleged offences involved a deliberate attempt to destabilise the state. It claimed the violence was not spontaneous but part of a well-orchestrated “pan-India” conspiracy aimed at “regime change” and “economic strangulation.”
Police further argued that the conspiracy was timed with the visit of the US President to draw international attention and globalise the issue of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which was allegedly used as a “radicalising catalyst” under the guise of peaceful protest.
According to the prosecution, the premeditated conspiracy resulted in 53 deaths, large-scale property damage, and the registration of 753 FIRs in Delhi alone. Evidence suggested the plan was intended to be replicated pan-India.
The prosecution also referred to WhatsApp groups such as the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) and Jamia Awareness Campaign Team as tools used to hatch the conspiracy. It argued that delays were attributable to the petitioners and that the trial could conclude within two years if they cooperated.
In response to claims that Sharjeel Imam is an intellectual, Delhi Police argued that “intellectuals involved in terrorism are more dangerous than those operating on the ground.”
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju cited past terror incidents to underline this point.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court on September 2 denied bail to Imam, Khalid and seven others, observing that their roles in the conspiracy were prima facie grave and involved inflammatory speeches to instigate communal mobilisation.
Seven petitioners subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking bail under the stringent provisions of the UAPA. Imam was arrested in 2020 and named as a main conspirator behind the riots, which erupted during protests against the proposed CAA and NRC. (ANI)
1,219 words, 6 minutes read time.
About The Author
