The Supreme Court has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam booked under the UAPA in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. Though the court has granted bail to five other accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan.

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria stated that the bail petition of each accused has to be examined individually since the seven accused were not on equal footing as regards culpability, Bar and Bench reported. “Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” the bench said while denying bail to the two, according to the report.

The court said that Khalid and Imam can move for bail again on completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from the present order. The five others were granted bail subject to strict conditions.

The court said that delay in trial can serve as a trigger for judicial scrutiny even in cases involving offences under the UAPA, like the present one. It said that while bail in UAPA cases is not given as a matter of routine, the law does not mandate denial of bail as default and does not exclude the court’s jurisdiction to allow bail.

The Delhi High Court had earlier denied them bail in September last year.

The lawyers for the accused had pointed to the delay in trial as a reason to grant them bail. But while denying bail, the court observed that a “hurried trial” would be detrimental to both the accused and the state. 

“The pace of the trial will progress naturally,” the court noted, observing that the police had done a detailed investigation, filed a chargesheet running into 3,000 pages, with an additional 30,000 pages of electronic evidence.

“With respect to the argument of the delay and prolonged incarceration, as noted herein above, the present case involves complex issues, and the trial is progressing at a natural pace. After giving our careful and thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as reasons outlined above, the appeal does not succeed,” read the order.

In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. We’ve got you covered. Subscribe to Newslaundry and power our work.