Delhi court seeks Delhi Police response to fresh bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid
text_fields
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Saturday issued notice to the Delhi Police on fresh regular bail applications filed by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the larger conspiracy case arising from the 2020 riots, and set the matter for further hearing on July 4.
Both accused have moved regular bail pleas in the case, which is booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions. The court directed the police to file their reply to the applications.
Imam’s plea said that more than six months after the Supreme Court rejected his bail application in January, there has been no meaningful progress in the trial. The petition noted that arguments on framing of charges remain incomplete and that Imam has been in custody for nearly six years.
Khalid has also sought regular bail before the trial court. The two applications were heard together before the court issued the notice to the police.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed bail applications of Khalid and Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. At the same time, the apex court granted bail to five other accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
More recently, the Supreme Court granted six months’ interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay can justify bail despite the restrictions in Section 43D(5). A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale noted differing approaches by coordinate Benches in applying the three-judge ruling in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, and asked the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench.
The observations followed submissions by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for the Delhi Police, pointing to divergence in how various Benches have interpreted the Najeeb judgment in cases under stringent statutes such as the UAPA and the NIA Act.
(Inputs from IANS)