Delhi police opposes bail for Khalid, Sharjeel, claims riot was planned by inimical forces
text_fields
In order to oppose the bail of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and six others accused in the 2020 riots in the national capital, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, on behalf of the Delhi Police, urged the Delhi High Court to adopt a stringent stance, presenting the riot as a conspiracy that was executed in a clinical, pathological manner and planned by forces inimical to India.
The riots, which occurred between February 23 and 26, were marked by violent clashes between supporters and opponents of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulting in 53 fatalities and numerous injuries, predominantly affecting the Muslim community.
Chetan Sharma argued before a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, asserting that the riots were orchestrated as a conspiracy.
He described the events as a deliberate and calculated effort by entities hostile to India, framing the violence as part of a broader agenda to tarnish the reputation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government. Sharma cited the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to oppose the bail pleas of the accused.
The accused—Khalid, Imam, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima—have been in custody for over four years, charged under multiple laws, including the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act, and UAPA. Their bail applications emphasized the prolonged delay in their trials and sought parity with other co-accused such as student activists Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in June 2021.
Sharma dismissed the relevance of parity, noting that the charges against the current set of accused carried potential life sentences. He underscored that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that the bail granted to Tanha, Narwal, and Kalita would not set a precedent for similar cases.
Following the High Court's decision to grant bail to these three activists, the police had escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which ultimately dismissed the petition without establishing a legal precedent.
In Khalid’s case, Sharma highlighted that his bail had been denied by the courts multiple times, most recently by a trial court in May 2023. Khalid had sought bail after withdrawing a plea from the Supreme Court, citing changed circumstances, but the High Court had upheld the trial court's rejection of his application in October 2022. Prior to this, his bail request was denied in March 2022. The Supreme Court has also faced delays in addressing Khalid's appeals, with Justice PK Mishra recusing himself from the case in August 2023.
Sharma argued that the absence of any substantial change in the factual matrix of the case rendered the latest bail petition baseless. He accused the accused of causing unnecessary delays in the trial proceedings, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution.
The hearings are set to continue on Wednesday, with the court expected to provide further clarity on the legal standing of the accused in the context of the ongoing trials.