The Delhi Police requested additional time to submit its response, citing a lengthy case record, thus the Supreme Court postponed the hearing on student leader Umar Khalid’s application for bail in the primary conspiracy case in the 2020 Delhi riots case on Wednesday.
On July 24, the court will hear the activist’s plea.
After the Delhi High Court denied his request for release on October 18, Umar Khalid, who has been imprisoned for more than two years following his arrest on September 13, 2020, filed a case with the Supreme Court in April.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, which was used to prosecute Khalid after he was accused of being the “mastermind” of the riots in north-east Delhi in February 2020, was issued a nearly two-month response period by the highest court on May 16.
The protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) erupted in violence that left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
Rajat Nair, a lawyer for the Delhi police, requested an adjournment as the matter was being heard by a bench of justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh on Wednesday due to the state’s inability to submit a response.
“The accusation sheet is hundreds of pages long. Please give us some time to prepare and submit our reply,” said Nair.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, remarked, “It has been two years now that he is inside jail. Why is a reply needed in a bail matter.”
Nair notified the court that the law officers will also be busy on July 24, which falls on a Monday when the Supreme Court has a somewhat large docket of new cases, and requested a minor accommodation to have the case kept Tuesday.
“It is for us to decide whether the board is heavy or not. This is a matter which may take one or two minutes,” the bench said, refusing to alter the date.
After hearing three weeks’ worth of arguments from each side, the supreme court decided on Khalid’s plea.
Khalid was accused by the Delhi police of giving provocative comments and calling for protests and roadblocks in several locations.
Donald Trump, the then-US President, visited Delhi at the same time as these speeches. All of this, according to the police, was done to highlight minorities’ discrimination and targeting in India before the international community.
In its ruling, the high court said, “Having carefully gone through the charge sheet and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant (Khalid) was in constant touch with other co-accused persons…at this stage, it is difficult to form an opinion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie not proved.”
The high court noted that even attempting to commit a terrorist act or intentionally helping to aid its commission is punished under the anti-terror law.
From the start of the conspiracy to the conclusion of the ensuing disturbances, Khalid’s name was often mentioned, according to the high court.
Courts must first be convinced that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim against the accused is at least presumptively true, as required by section 43D of the UAPA. When such a finding is reached based on the evidence gathered, courts often do not grant bail.
The decision further noted that the police had discovered his involvement in engineering protests against CAA.
“The planned protest was not a typical protest normal in political culture or democracy but one far more destructive and injurious geared towards extremely grave consequences,” the supreme court noted.
In support of his request for release, Khalid claims that the police were unable to physically seize anything from him in relation to the accusations made against him.
He also asserted that the evidence used to convict him was tainted with significant contradictions and could not be trusted to be accurate.
