Umar Khalid moves Delhi High Court seeking interim bail to attend Chehlum, care for ailing mother
text_fields
New Delhi: Jailed student activist Umar Khalid has approached the Delhi High Court after a trial court refused his plea for interim bail in the larger-conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.
Khalid sought temporary release on humanitarian grounds to attend the Chehlum ceremony for his late uncle on May 24 and to care for his mother, who is due to undergo lump excision surgery on June 2. A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain is listed to hear the matter on Friday, according to the high court causelist.
Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court dismissed Khalid’s application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, read with Section 439 of the CrPC, which had sought 15 days’ interim bail.
The trial court noted that although Khalid had been granted interim bail on several past occasions and complied with conditions, each application must be decided on its own merits. It found attendance at the Chehlum “not that necessary” and said other family members could care for his mother, describing the proposed surgery as minor. The court therefore deemed the reasons insufficient and rejected the bail request.
The prosecution had argued Khalid sought to misuse judicial leniency, contending his uncle did not qualify as a “close relation” and that his sisters and elderly father could manage his mother’s care.
Khalid has been in custody since September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other charges. He faces allegations in an alleged “larger conspiracy” that, according to Delhi Police, involved student activists conspiring to provoke the North-East Delhi riots of February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court refused bail to Khalid and co accused Sharjeel Imam, finding prima facie material attracting the statutory bar in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Khalid’s review petition against that order was also dismissed in April.
(Inputs from IANS)