The Delhi Police has told the Delhi High Court to reject the fresh bail appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case and said that the bail petitions filed by activist Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the case were “illegal” and an “attempt to mislead the court.”
Imam and Khalid had moved to the high court, challenging the rejection of their third bail applications by the trial court in the case. The high court issued notice in the matter last month on the bail pleas of both, Live Law reported.
The bench stated that both Imam and Khalid could file a new petition after all the protected witnesses are examined, or they can file after one year.
The police said to the High Court that the threshold that was set before by the Supreme Court has still not been met.
Imam and Khalid were arrested in connection with the communal violence that broke out in Northeast Delhi in February 2020, which claimed the lives of at least 53 individuals. Both Imam and Khalid have been arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act, and sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Furthermore, in the case of Khalid, the state has also cited the observation of the Supreme Court that he had “command authority” and could mobilize or influence other people.
The police also told the High Court that the ““risk profiles” of all accused are “markedly dissimilar,” justifying their continued detention of the activists.
Earlier this year, on January 5, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, and Muhammad Saleem Khan in the Delhi riots case. Notably, the trial against Khalid and Imam has yet not started.
In May, earlier this year, the division bench of Justice Arvanid Kumar rejected Khalid and Imam’s bail pleas and observed that there was a “perceived conflict” in different benches in light of the understanding of the 3-judge bench judgment in Union of India v KA Najeeb and referred the issue to a larger bench, Live Law reported.
