The Delhi High Court on Wednesday turned down the bail appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged "larger conspiracy" case tied to the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi, saying it could not go beyond the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Dinesh Bhatt dismissed the two appeals, holding that the High Court was "bound by judicial discipline" and could not modify directions issued by the apex court in the Gulfisha Fatima matter.
Tied to Supreme Court's January order
The January 5 Supreme Court order had granted bail to five co-accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — but denied the same relief to Khalid and Imam. It allowed the two to renew their bail applications only after the examination of protected witnesses is completed or one year elapses from the order, whichever comes first. The High Court said granting bail now would amount to rewriting that order, which it had no authority to do.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court had placed Khalid and Imam in a distinct position from the other accused, describing them as the "ideological drivers" of the entire alleged conspiracy.
Arguments for reconsideration rejected
Khalid and Imam were challenging the trial court's July 4 order, which had rejected their bail applications for the third time. Their lawyers argued that circumstances had changed: a coordinate Supreme Court bench led by Justice B V Nagarathna had expressed reservations about the Gulfisha Fatima reasoning in light of the 2021 Union of India v. KA Najeeb ruling on prolonged trial delay under UAPA, co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi had received interim bail on grounds of delay, and six further months had passed since the January order.
The High Court was not persuaded. It held that the roles attributed to Ahmed and Saifi differed from those of Khalid and Imam, so no parity could be claimed. The bench also recorded that the appellants' counsel declined its suggestion to wait until the first week of January before pressing the appeals, after which it proceeded to decide them the same day.
The case
The matter arises from FIR 59 of 2020, investigated by the Delhi Police's Special Cell, and involves offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It concerns the alleged conspiracy behind the violence that erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the proposed National Register of Citizens. Both Khalid and Imam have been in custody since 2020; in May, a bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar had already referred the perceived conflict among benches over UAPA bail jurisprudence to a larger bench.
Sources: Deccan Herald — Bound by SC order, can't grant bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam | LiveLaw — Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Dinesh Bhatt dismissed the two appeals, holding that the High Court was "bound by judicial discipline" and could not modify directions issued by the apex court in the Gulfisha Fatima matter.
Tied to Supreme Court's January order
The January 5 Supreme Court order had granted bail to five co-accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — but denied the same relief to Khalid and Imam. It allowed the two to renew their bail applications only after the examination of protected witnesses is completed or one year elapses from the order, whichever comes first. The High Court said granting bail now would amount to rewriting that order, which it had no authority to do.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court had placed Khalid and Imam in a distinct position from the other accused, describing them as the "ideological drivers" of the entire alleged conspiracy.
Arguments for reconsideration rejected
Khalid and Imam were challenging the trial court's July 4 order, which had rejected their bail applications for the third time. Their lawyers argued that circumstances had changed: a coordinate Supreme Court bench led by Justice B V Nagarathna had expressed reservations about the Gulfisha Fatima reasoning in light of the 2021 Union of India v. KA Najeeb ruling on prolonged trial delay under UAPA, co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi had received interim bail on grounds of delay, and six further months had passed since the January order.
The High Court was not persuaded. It held that the roles attributed to Ahmed and Saifi differed from those of Khalid and Imam, so no parity could be claimed. The bench also recorded that the appellants' counsel declined its suggestion to wait until the first week of January before pressing the appeals, after which it proceeded to decide them the same day.
The case
The matter arises from FIR 59 of 2020, investigated by the Delhi Police's Special Cell, and involves offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It concerns the alleged conspiracy behind the violence that erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the proposed National Register of Citizens. Both Khalid and Imam have been in custody since 2020; in May, a bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar had already referred the perceived conflict among benches over UAPA bail jurisprudence to a larger bench.
Sources: Deccan Herald — Bound by SC order, can't grant bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam | LiveLaw — Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
