Delhi Police oppose bail for Umar, Sharjeel; describe them as ‘masterminds’ of 2020 riots conspiracy

New Delhi: The Delhi Police have opposed the bail pleas of jailed student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court, describing them as “masterminds” of the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots and contending that their fresh pleas were not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court’s January 5 order.

In separate replies filed in the High Court, the Delhi Police said the two accused had been placed in a “qualitatively different” category from other co-accused and that the Supreme Court had already identified their alleged roles as involving “command authority” and strategic direction in the conspiracy.

The Delhi Police argued that their present bail proceedings were “misconceived and illegal” and amounted to an abuse of the process of law, as the Supreme Court had already prescribed the circumstances in which Khalid and Imam could renew their bail pleas.

“The present bail proceedings are misconceived and illegal in view of the following grounds… the present appellant is one of the ‘masterminds’ of the Delhi riots,” the replies said.

The prosecution relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), in which the apex court had rejected the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s assessment of the prosecution material, the police said the alleged masterminds were supported by “direct, corroborative, and contemporaneous evidence”, including recoveries, digital communication trails and statements indicating managerial responsibility.

“The alleged masterminds are stated to have exercised command authority and to possess the ability to mobilise or influence individuals within and outside their immediate circle,” the Delhi Police quoted the Supreme Court as having observed.

The police further said the apex court had found the “risk profiles” of the accused to be “markedly dissimilar”, thereby justifying their continued detention.

It contended that this finding prevented Khalid and Imam from relying on bail orders granted to other co-accused in the same case. The replies also relied upon the operative directions issued by the Supreme Court on January 5, under which Khalid and Imam were permitted to renew their bail pleas after the completion of examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or upon expiry of one year from the date of the judgment, whichever was earlier.

The police said the present appeals had been filed before either of those circumstances had arisen. “The present bail proceedings, having been filed before the examination of the protected witnesses or expiry of one year from the date of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order (i.e., before 05.01.2027) are in teeth of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s binding directions,” the replies said.

It added that the Supreme Court had itself provided the “change in circumstances” that would enable Khalid and Imam to renew their bail pleas and had defined the point at which such applications would become maintainable.

The Delhi Police also opposed reliance placed by the accused on the Supreme Court’s subsequent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs. NIA, saying the decision concerned an unrelated case and could not override the specific findings and directions passed in Khalid and Imam’s own case.

“The judgment of a co-ordinate bench in a different case… cannot override the specific findings and directions passed by the Hon’ble Court in the Appellant’s own case,” the replies said.

The police highlighted that the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi judgment did not deal with the Delhi riots case or the alleged role of Khalid and Imam. It also said that the factual findings in the Gulfisha Fatima decision, including the applicability of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), had not been doubted in the subsequent judgment.

It similarly rejected the accused’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s May 22 interim order in Tasleem Ahmed vs. State (NCT of Delhi), by which the divergence concerning the application of the UAPA bail restrictions and prolonged incarceration was referred to a larger Bench.

According to the Delhi Police, the mere reference of a legal issue to a larger Bench did not unsettle the law declared in the earlier judgment. It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which held that “mere reference to a larger Bench does not unsettle declared law”.

The police further referred to the apex court’s observation that High Courts were required to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stood and could not refuse to follow a judgment merely because its correctness had subsequently been doubted by a coordinate Bench.

“In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts,” the Delhi Police said, quoting the Supreme Court.

The replies were filed in appeals challenging the July 4 orders of the Karkardooma trial court dismissing the third regular bail applications of Khalid and Imam in FIR No. 59 of 2020 registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch.

The Delhi Police urged the High Court to dismiss both appeals at the threshold, terming the proceedings an “abuse of the process of law”.

Khalid has also sought interim bail before the Delhi High Court, relying on the issue of prolonged incarceration and the reference pending before the Supreme Court on the interplay between Article 21 and the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The Delhi High Court had on July 31 issued notice to the Delhi Police on Khalid’s appeal and his interim bail plea and listed it along with Imam’s appeal for August 27. However, the hearing has now been deferred as August 27 has been declared a holiday, with the matters likely to be taken up on Monday.

The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020.

Khalid and Imam are among several accused booked under the UAPA and other penal provisions and have remained in custody for several years.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Khalid and Imam while granting bail to five other co-accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

More recently, the apex court granted six months’ interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial could justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

IANS