Fresh applications before the Karkardooma Court argued that despite the Supreme Court rejecting their earlier bail pleas on Jan 5, there has been little progress in the trial over the past 6 months.

Fresh applications before the Karkardooma Court argued that despite the Supreme Court rejecting their earlier bail pleas on Jan 5, there has been little progress in the trial over the past 6 months.

Fresh applications before the Karkardooma Court argued that despite the Supreme Court rejecting their earlier bail pleas on Jan 5, there has been little progress in the trial over the past 6 months.

A Delhi court on Saturday rejected the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the criminal conspiracy linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.

Fresh applications before the Karkardooma Court argued that despite the Supreme Court rejecting their earlier bail pleas on January 5, there has been little progress in the trial over the past six months.

In that regard, the two accused have argued that their continued imprisonment, which has gone past six years, violates their right to freedom.

Khalid, Imam and several others were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being part of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi.

The violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), which killed 53 people and injured about 700 others.

The Delhi court concluded the proceedings before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai denied relief to both the accused after hearing both sides' bail arguments.

Khalid's plea also despite the January 5 rejection from the apex court, subsequent judicial developments constituted a "change in circumstances", a PTI report noted.

He referred to the court's remarks in a May 18 terror case, asserting that "bail is the rule", even under the UAPA.

That judgement had been made by an SC Bench of justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while granting bail to Jammu and Kashmir resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Imam's bail plea reiterated the fact that judicial circumstances had changed since the apex court's ruling.

The two accused also cited various Supreme Court judgments on prolonged incarceration—including Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb as well as Vernon Gonsalves versus State of Maharashtra—to contend that the statutory restrictions on bail under the UAPA could not override constitutional protections where a trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.

The court also noted it was strictly bound to the SC direction that Khalid and Imam could revive their plea for bail only after protected witnesses were examined, or after one year—whichever comes earlier.

Opposing the bail pleas of the accused, the prosecutor said that the alleged “change of circumstances” was not sufficient enough for a bail to be considered in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

“Successive bail applications are maintainable only upon demonstration of a substantial and material change in circumstances. No such change has occurred after dismissal of the applicant’s Special Leave Petition and Review Petition," the prosecutor said.

The prosecutor also argued that making references to certain specific judgements from other cases did not constitute a change in circumstances either.

In any case, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Police declared that until a larger bench clarifies further, the findings, directions, or the SC embargo Court will stay in effect.

TAGS