🏛️ Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Others in Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
.png)
New Delhi, September 2, 2024
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court rejected the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven other accused in the larger conspiracy case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots. The decision was made under the framework of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), specifically invoking Section 43D(5), which places stringent restrictions on the grant of bail if the accusations against the accused appear to be prima facie true.
The Court's Scrutiny & The Prosecution's Narrative🔍
The High Court’s ruling, spread across 133 pages, meticulously examined the prosecution’s material, including witness depositions, WhatsApp chats, pamphlets, video footage, and public speeches. The crux of the judgment rests on the acceptance of the prosecution’s overarching narrative that the riots were the result of a planned conspiracy. In doing so, the court treated a wide range of political and protest-related activities as evidence of a design to provoke and instigate violence.
The Two Pillars of Evidence⚖️
1. Anonymous Witness Statements: Several protected witnesses, identified only through pseudonyms such as “Golf,” “Bravo,” and “Helium”, claimed that Umar Khalid had spoken at closed-door meetings about preparations for violence, including discussions about stockpiling weapons. These statements also alleged that such planning was deliberately timed around the visit of then U.S. President Donald Trump to India in February 2020.
2. Circumstantial and Documentary Evidence: This included Khalid’s public speeches, his alleged participation in various protest-related meetings, coordination through WhatsApp groups, pamphlets circulated during protests, and video recordings.
Portrayal as "Intellectual Architects"🧠
Based on these, the prosecution portrayed Khalid and Imam not merely as participants but as the “intellectual architects” of the anti-CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protest movement. Their speeches and coordination efforts were described as providing the strategic direction that allegedly escalated into violence.
- A January 2020 speech by Khalid at a public meeting in Seelampur, North-East Delhi was cited as a significant incriminating incident, where he allegedly spoke of “riots with bloodshed.”
- Another speech delivered by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra, shortly before Trump’s visit, was read as a deliberate attempt to incite unrest and damage India’s international image.
- Furthermore, Khalid’s and Imam’s participation in WhatsApp groups like the Delhi Protest Support Group and the JMI Coordination Committee was considered evidence of coordinated planning. Discussions in these groups reportedly included strategies such as chakka jams (road blockades), removal of CCTV cameras, and even alleged preparations for violence.
The High Court’s Reasoning & The UAPA Hurdle⚖️
The court evaluated these elements cumulatively and found them corroborative of the prosecution’s conspiracy theory. While circumstantial evidence can often lend itself to multiple interpretations, the High Court accepted the prosecution’s case that, when seen together, the evidence established a prima facie link to the alleged conspiracy.
On this reasoning, the court concluded that the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) of UAPA was met, and therefore, bail could not be granted.
Prolonged Incarceration vs. Gravity of Charges⏳
The court also addressed the issue of prolonged incarceration, as Khalid and Imam have spent over five years in custody without trial being completed. However, it dismissed this argument, holding that the seriousness of the charges and the existence of a prima facie case outweighed the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This stance marked a departure from several Supreme Court precedents like Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India (2024), and Athar Parwez vs. Union of India (2024), where the apex court granted bail citing prolonged pre-trial detention as a violation of Article 21.
Distinction Between the Accused🔀
Interestingly, while several co-accused in the same case have already been granted bail, the High Court drew a distinction between them and Khalid/Imam. The court characterized Khalid and Imam as “key conspirators” with a more central role in planning and strategizing, as opposed to others whose involvement was seen as peripheral or secondary.
Broader Implications: Conspiracy, Liberty, and the Law💡
This judgment highlights how expansively the concept of “conspiracy” can be interpreted under UAPA. Once activities like attending meetings, delivering speeches, or being part of WhatsApp groups are read as components of a larger conspiracy, distinguishing between “primary conspirators” and “ordinary participants” becomes blurred.
It also underscores a persistent tension in Indian jurisprudence: the conflict between stringent bail restrictions under special security laws like UAPA and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
In essence, while the Supreme Court has in recent years leaned towards protecting liberty in cases of prolonged undertrial detention, the Delhi High Court’s decision in this case demonstrates a more restrictive approach, prioritizing the gravity of allegations and the prosecution’s conspiracy framework over the individual’s right to freedom during trial.
Comments
Post a Comment