Senior advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that the petitioners have been in jail for five years. Justice Kumar directed that the matter be taken up on Friday, asking the ASG to obtain proper instructions
2020 riots: SC defers to Oct 31 hearing on bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
The SC bench granted time to Delhi Police to file a reply in the UAPA case related to the 2020 Delhi riots; activists challenge Delhi HC's bail rejection
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 27) deferred to October 31 hearing on bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider in the UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in Delhi. It directed the he Delhi Police to obtain proper instructions and file its counter-affidavit by that date.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria adjourned the matter after Additional Solicitor General S V Raju sought time.
Raju sought two weeks time to file reply in the case but the top court said it would hear the matter on Friday.
"Frankly speaking, in bail matters there is no question of filing counter," the bench said.
'In jail for 5 years'
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that the petitioners have been in jail for five years.
Justice Kumar directed that the matter be taken up on Friday, asking the ASG to obtain proper instructions. “Please ensure you receive proper instructions from your colleagues, and Mr. Raju, examine if you can come up with something,” he said.
ASG SV Raju responded that he will review the record, adding, “Sometimes what may appear may be different from what is there.”
Justice Kumar remarks, “Five years they have completed.”
Notice to Delhi police
The top court on September 22 had issued notice to the Delhi Police and sought its response. The activists have moved the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court order passed on September 2.
Bail denied
The high court denied bail to nine people, including Khalid and Imam, saying "conspiratorial" violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens could not be allowed.
Also read: Sharjeel Imam moves SC against denial of bail in Delhi riots case
Besides Khalid and Imam, those who faced bail rejection are Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.
The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by a different high court bench on September 2.
The high court said the Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms, and such actions must be within the bounds of law.
While the high court said the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings was said to have been protected under Article 19(1)(a), and couldn't be blatantly curtailed, it observed the right was "not absolute" and "subject to reasonable restrictions".
"If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law and order situation in the country," the bail rejection order said.
'No physical evidence'
On October 17, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid told a Delhi court that there is “no physical evidence” linking him to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.
Also read: Sanjay Hegde exclusive | Indefinite prison for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam?
Khalid said that the police’s charge sheet relies solely on statements recorded months after the incident.
Booked under UAPA
Khalid, Imam and the rest of the accused persons were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.
The accused, who have denied all the allegations against them, have been in jail since 2020 and had moved the high court after a trial court rejected their bail pleas.
(With inputs from agencies)