Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 north-east Delhi riots conspiracy case, holding that the material on record showed their role to be "central" and met the threshold for invoking the UAPA.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria granted bail to five other accused -- Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed -- while placing various conditions on them.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court said it had consciously avoided adopting a collective or unified approach while examining the bail pleas and had assessed each case independently. It observed that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam, and that the statutory threshold under the UAPA stood attracted in their cases. At the present stage of the proceedings, the court said, granting them bail was not justified.
The bench observed that Khalid and Imam stood on a "qualitatively different footing" from the other accused, adding that examining individual bail pleas does not dismantle the prosecution's overall case of conspiracy. It said the hierarchy of participation requires separate evaluation of culpability in each case.
The apex court also held that a "terrorist act" under the UAPA is not confined to conventional warfare or acts causing death or physical destruction, but extends to actions that attack the nation's integrity and sovereignty, disrupt essential services, or pose a threat to the economy.
At the same time, the court underscored that prolonged pre-trial incarceration must be justified by the state under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that all accused cannot be treated alike for the purpose of bail.
The court said that after the examination of protected witnesses, or one year from the date of the order, whichever is earlier, the appellants would be at liberty to move fresh bail applications.
The apex court had reserved its verdict on December 10 after hearing detailed arguments from all parties. During the hearings, counsel for the accused had primarily argued on the prolonged delay in the trial and the fact that the accused have spent over five years in custody despite the trial yet to commence.
