Delhi Court Rejects Umar Khalid’s Bail Plea Filed To Attend Uncle’s Last Rites And Help Ailing Mother

A Delhi court on Tuesday rejected an interim bail plea filed by former JNU student activist Umar Khalid, who had sought temporary release to care for his ailing mother and attend post-death rituals of his uncle. The order was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Delhi's Karkardooma court.

Umar Khalid remains in custody in Delhi riots conspiracy case

Umar Khalid has been lodged in jail since September 13, 2020, after being arrested in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. He and several others were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), along with multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Investigating agencies have accused the activists of being among the "masterminds" behind the violence that erupted in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).

The communal clashes had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

Supreme Court observations had briefly raised hopes

The Delhi court's decision came just a day after the Supreme Court made significant observations while hearing another UAPA-related matter, comments that had sparked fresh hope for Umar Khalid and co-accused activist Sharjeel Imam.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, while granting bail to Jammu and Kashmir resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), questioned the reasoning used in a January 5 verdict that had denied bail to Khalid and Imam.

The top court stated that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" even in cases registered under the UAPA.

Supreme Court questions earlier interpretation of UAPA bail rules

The bench reportedly expressed "serious reservations" over the earlier judgment delivered by another two-judge bench of the apex court in the Delhi riots conspiracy matter.

According to the court, the January 5 ruling did not properly apply the legal principles laid down by a larger three-judge bench in the Union of India vs KA Najeeb (2021) case. That judgment had recognised that prolonged incarceration and delays in trial could outweigh the stringent bail restrictions imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Reading out portions of the order in open court, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, "Bail is not an empty statutory slogan. It is a constitutional principle flowing from Article 21, and the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law."

The bench further stated, "Even under UAPA, bail is the rule and jail an exception. Bail can only be denied in a particular case depending on the facts of that particular case."

Delhi riots case continues amid prolonged legal battle

The Delhi riots conspiracy case remains one of the most high-profile prosecutions linked to the 2020 violence in the national capital. Multiple accused persons, including student leaders and activists, continue to face proceedings under anti-terror provisions, while debates around prolonged incarceration, delayed trials and the scope of UAPA continue to be raised before courts.