Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Jun 13: A Delhi court has called for a response from the Delhi Police on fresh bail applications filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 Delhi riots.
Taking up the pleas on Friday, the court issued notices to the police and directed the investigating agency to submit its response. The matter has now been scheduled for further proceedings on July 4.
Both Khalid and Imam have approached the trial court seeking regular bail in the case, which has been registered under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) along with other criminal laws.
In his latest application, Imam argued that there has been little progress in the trial despite more than six months having passed since the Supreme Court rejected his bail plea in January. The plea highlighted that arguments relating to the framing of charges are still underway and noted that he has spent nearly six years in custody in connection with the case.
Khalid has also filed a fresh petition seeking regular bail. Since both applications arise from the same case, the court considered them together and sought the Delhi Police's position before proceeding further.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had declined to grant bail to Khalid and Imam, observing that the prosecution's material, at the preliminary stage, disclosed sufficient grounds to attract the restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
However, in the same case, the apex court granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
The legal debate surrounding prolonged incarceration under stringent anti-terror laws has continued to evolve. Recently, the Supreme Court granted six months of interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring a significant legal question to a larger Bench: whether extended imprisonment and delays in trial can justify granting bail despite the restrictions imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that different Supreme Court Benches had expressed varying interpretations of the landmark ruling in the case of Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb. The Bench directed the court registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by an appropriate larger Bench.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, argued that inconsistencies appeared to exist in how different Benches were applying the K.A. Najeeb judgment while deciding bail matters under stringent laws such as the UAPA and the National Investigation Agency Act.
The Bench also referred to the subsequent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, where another coordinate Bench expressed reservations regarding certain aspects of the earlier decision that denied bail to Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Ahmed and Saifi for six months, noting the substantial period they had already spent in custody and observing that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
The latest bail applications filed by Khalid and Imam are expected to revive the legal debate over prolonged pre-trial detention, the pace of proceedings, and the interpretation of bail provisions under anti-terror legislation.