New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments from the Delhi Police opposing activist Umar Khalid’s plea for bail in the 2020 Delhi riots case. Police contended that Khalid cannot claim parity with co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, whose bail was granted in 2021, because that order was based on an incorrect interpretation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Live Law reported.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that the High Court had erred in concluding the UAPA applied only to offences concerning the “defence of India.” This, he argued, led the court to wrongly disregard Section 43D(5) of the Act, which bars bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true, the legal news outlet reported.
Raju further said that once the High Court treated UAPA as inapplicable, it incorrectly invoked Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) instead of Section 437. Section 437 governs bail in non-bailable offences before a magistrate, imposing stricter limits where offences carry death, life imprisonment or terms of seven years or more. Section 439, by contrast, gives broader powers to the High Court and Sessions Court.
He emphasised that the Supreme Court itself had clarified that the 2021 bail order for Kalita and others could not be treated as precedent, Bar and Bench reported. “If bail is granted on a wrong interpretation of judgment or law, there is nothing like parity,” Raju said, adding that cancelling bail requires stronger grounds than refusing it initially, Live Law reported.
Khalid has repeatedly raised the parity argument in earlier petitions, which the courts rejected. Raju noted that the same claim cannot be revived unless circumstances change.
The case stems from communal violence in North East Delhi in February 2020, which left 53 people dead and hundreds injured, most of them Muslims. Khalid, along with Sharjeel Imam, Gulshifa Fatima, Meeran Haider and Shifa Ur Rehma, was arrested between January and September 2020. They face charges under the UAPA, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code.
In an affidavit filed on 30 October, the Delhi Police alleged the accused were part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent. Police described Khalid as the chief conspirator, claiming he mentored Imam in planning the first phase of violence.
Defence counsel Kapil Sibal countered that the prosecution was deliberately delaying the trial and unfairly placing blame on Khalid. He argued that no weapons or incriminating material were recovered from him, nor was there evidence linking him to acts of violence. The only allegation, Sibal said, was a speech delivered in Maharashtra on 17 February 2020, which invoked Gandhian principles of non-violence and could not be construed as provocative.
On 2 September, the High Court dismissed bail applications filed by Khalid and four others. Their challenge to that ruling is now before the Supreme Court.