New Delhi, Jan 5 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act related to the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 riots in the national capital.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, while underscoring the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the two activists, observed that they stood “on a qualitatively different footing” compared to the other accused in the case.
However, the Court granted bail to five other co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad after distinguishing their alleged roles in the violence.
The verdict follows separate special leave petitions filed by the accused challenging a September 2 Delhi High Court order denying them bail.
The bench stated that, as the order was lengthy, it would read out only a few paragraphs. It emphasised that a speedy trial in the case was essential. The defense had alleged that the delay in the investigation and trial was attributable to the prosecution.
The judgment noted that delay can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny. “Article 21 occupies a central space in the constitutional scheme. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be assumed to have the character of punishment. The deprivation of liberty must not be arbitrary. The UAPA, as a special statute, represents a legislative judgment on the conditions under which bail may be granted at the pre-trial stage,” the order stated.
The apex court also observed that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing compared to the other accused. This was highlighted as one of the key observations of the Court.
In its judgment, the Court noted that it had consciously avoided a collective or unified approach. “This Court is satisfied that the prosecution material discloses a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. At this stage of proceedings, their release on bail is not justified,” the order read.
