Hurried Trial Would Be Detrimental To Rights Of Both Accused & State: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid & Others In 2020 Riots Case
The Delhi High Court remarked that the role of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid is prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy, having delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilization of members of the Muslim Community.
Umar Khalid, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and other accused persons in 2020 ‘Delhi Riots’ case.
A batch of Criminal Appeals were preferred by the accused persons, challenging the respective Orders of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), by which their Bail Applications were dismissed.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, “… the pace of the trial will progress naturally. A hurried trial would also be detrimental to the rights of both the Appellants and the State. The parties have informed this Court that the trial is currently at the stage of hearing arguments on the framing of charges, thus, it indicates that the case is progressing.”
The Bench remarked that the role of the Appellants-Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid is prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy, having delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilization of members of the Muslim Community.
Senior Advocates Trideep Pais, Rebecca M. John, Salman Khurshid, N. Hariharan, and Advocate Talib Mustafa represented the Appellants while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma, and SPP Amit Prasad represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution case, several accused persons and individuals including the Appellants allegedly committed large-scale riots in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, in protest against the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). These riots were allegedly carried out by inciting widespread communal violence in February 2020 which resulted in the loss of 54 lives including the death of a Senior Police Officer and an Intelligence Bureau Official, grievous injuries to several Police officers and members of the public, damage to more than 1,500 public and private properties, etc, apart from the other intangible harm caused to the Nation as a consequence.
Hence, an FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and thereafter, offences under Sections 109, 114, 124A, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 419, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC; Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act); Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UAPA). As the Trial Court dismissed the Bail Applications of the Appellants, they approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “… the Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided that they are orderly, peaceful and without arms. Moreso, the citizens have a fundamental right to voice their concerns against the legislative actions, which only fortifies the Democratic setup by indicating the participation of the citizens in governance. This right is crucial, as it enables the citizens to express their dissent, expose flaws in governance, and demand accountability from the State Authorities. However, such actions must be within the bounds of law.”
The Court said that the prosecution has strongly alleged about the magnitude, and involvement of numerous conspirators, individuals, and organisations, who are stated to have mobilised thousands of people in protest within the National Capital of India, resulting in 54 deaths, injuries caused to numerous persons and destruction of movable and immovable public and private properties.
“The investigating agency has made earnest efforts to unearth the alleged deep-rooted conspiracy, as is evident from the undisputed fact that the chargesheet runs into more than 3,000 pages, with an additional 30,000 pages of electronic evidence. The State carried out a detailed investigation, which led to the arrest of several individuals and the filing of four supplementary chargesheets, with multiple accused persons charge-sheeted, and as many as 58 witnesses, including protected witnesses, whose statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were also recorded before the learned Magistrate”, it added.
The Court further observed that in a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the accused persons must be involved in all facets of the criminality.
“Participation in one group or the other, and the connectivity of the Appellant with the co-accused persons, including Shadab Ahmad, Umar Khalid etc, are factors to be considered. The WhatsApp groups that the Appellant allegedly created, of which one noticeably, revolve around coordination in protests and ensuring that as many women participate in the protests. This factum of creation of these two groups cannot be seen in isolation, the consideration should weigh in on broad probabilities as per the settled law”, it also remarked.
Conclusion
The Court reiterated that merely because co-accused persons have been granted bail, would not, by itself, entitle the other accused to bail; there are other considerations and factors which weigh in for considering parity.
“Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, and specifically the submission of the learned Solicitor General and the learned SPP that the present is not a case of regular protest/riot matter, but rather a pre meditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy to commit unlawful activities threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India, it becomes the arduous task of the Court to strike a balance between individual rights and the interests of the nation, as well as the safety and security of the general public at large. Therefore, these appeals do not succeed”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeals and denied bail to the accused persons.
Cause Title- Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7632-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Trideep Pais, Rebecca M. John, Salman Khurshid, N. Hariharan, Advocates Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, Ayesha Zaidi, Abhishek Singh, Jeet Chakrabarti, Akif Abidi, and Kartik Venu.
Respondent: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma, SPP Amit Prasad, Advocates Dhruv Pande, Aarush Bhatia, Ayodhya Prasad, Ruchika Prasad, Harshil Jain, Saravjeet Singh, Amit Gupta, Shubham Sharma, and Vikramaditya Singh.
