The Supreme Court rejected the bail plea of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case. The apex court has, however, granted bail to the other five persons accused in the matter: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. Notably, Umar and Sharjeel, have been granted liberty to apply for bail afresh in the trial court, once the examination of all prosecution witnesses are completed or in any case after one years’ time.
The Court noted that Umar and Sharjeel stand on a “qualitatively different footing” both in terms of prosecution and evidence. It was observed that their roles were“central” to the alleged offences. “As regards these two, though the period of incarceration is continued and long it does not violate the Constitutional mandate or override the statutory embargo under the laws,” the SC stated.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria delivered its verdict on the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and several others, who challenged the Delhi High Court order denying them bail in a case under the UAPA linked to the larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots. Earlier, during the hearing of their pleas seeking bail, the advocates who appeared for them argued on the delay and the unlikelihood of the commencement of the trial. The court was told that they have been under custody for over five years in a case in which they are facing serious allegations of committing offences under the UAPA.
Delhi riots case: What did the SC say?
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that the charge sheet was filed under sections of the IPC and UAPA. The arguments presented before this Court were common to all the appeals, citing prolonged incarceration and Article 21. The judgment includes details of the factual background and the prosecution’s case. We have considered the prolonged incarceration, the scope of the terrorist act, and other aspects. Arguments regarding the time spent in custody and prolonged incarceration were presented.
The Supreme Court stated that the question is more nuanced: under the UAPA, what factors should a court consider when the argument of delay in prosecution is raised. “The right to a speedy trial is recognised. Imprisonment cannot be considered a punishment merely due to the passage of time. Deprivation of liberty must not be arbitrary. The court must consider when pre-trial bail can be considered,” the apex court stated.
