Hearing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and seven others accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday denied them relief, according to LiveLaw.

The other accused in the UAPA case include activists Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Athar Khan, Mohd Saleem, Shadab Ahmed, and United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi. 

The accused had challenged the trial court’s decisions denying them bail. The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had reserved its judgment in July after extensive hearings. 

Opposing the bail pleas, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said, “If you are doing something against the nation, then you better be in jail till you are acquitted or convicted.” 

Meanwhile, another high court bench reportedly denied bail to Tasleem Ahmed, another accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, whose petition was de-tagged from the others on the request of his lawyer.

What happened in HC hearings

During the hearings, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Umar Khalid, had argued that “merely being on WhatsApp groups, without sending any message, is no criminality.” Pais also submitted that there is “no recovery, money or otherwise, effected from Khalid,” and disputed the prosecution’s claim that a meeting on February 23-24, 2020, was secretive.

Senior advocate Rebecca John, representing Khalid Saifi, had questioned the validity of the charges: “Can UAPA on the basis of innocuous messages or their (prosecution) attempt to make stories out of such messages, can it become a reason to deny me bail or is it even a ground to prosecute me under UAPA?” John further argued for Saifi’s release on grounds of parity with three co-accused who were granted bail in June 2021.

Sharjeel Imam asserted he was not linked to the co-accused, stating he is not part of any conspiracy meetings as alleged. Advocate Talib Mustafa, Imam’s counsel, pointed out that Imam’s alleged involvement in the protests ended on January 23, 2020, and the only act cited by police is a speech delivered in Bihar.

Defense counsel claim the accused have already spent over four years in custody without charges being framed and the delay in the trial makes their continued imprisonment unjustifiable. They also sought bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who were previously granted bail, such as Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha.

The bail plea by Umar Khalid was earlier adjourned several times in the Supreme Court. Read this to understand the reasons and the timeline of these adjournments.

On February 17, 2020, Khalid had made a speech in Amravati, which is now treated as evidence of a conspiracy. While arguing on behalf of Khalid in the trial court in 2021, his lawyer Trideep Pais had said the Delhi police’s entire case was based on edited footage from Republic and News18.

Republic then replied saying the footage had not been recorded by its own cameraperson; it was actually material tweeted by the BJP’s Amit Malviya. News18, which Pais accused of omitting a crucial statement, said they did not have the raw footage either.

In one of the hearings, Pais said it was the prosecutor’s wish to paint every accused in the case with the same brush but that it “crumbles” when one looks at the chargesheet.

Pais also said the allegations against Khalid were rhetorical, such as calling him the “veteran of sedition” without facts to back it. The allegations, he claimed, had read like a 9 pm news script of a shouting news channel.

But the writing was already on the wall. When co-accused Ishrat Jahan was granted bail in 2022, the court had held that she had not created the idea of “chakka jam” and was not part of incriminating WhatsApp groups – giving a clear indication what the order for Khalid would hold.

The bail order was subsequently challenged.

Months after the National Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority objected to how some TV news channels covered Umar’s prosecution, Khalid had written an open letter, saying the media had reported on his bail proceedings “very selectively”. “When my lawyers argued, they mostly did not report our submissions, or if for a change they decided to be too kind to me on some days, they consigned it to a small obscure column on page 5 or 6 and with the most banal headlines. But the public prosecutor’s counters were front-page news, presented in a manner to sound as if those were the court’s observations. And on such occasions, they even dug up some dark photos of mine to complement their sensationalist headlines.”

Watch this to understand how the trial in the conspiracy case has been marred by delays and many unanswered questions. The UAPA charges have led to prolonged pre-trial detention, sparking debates over legal safeguards and civil liberties in India.