New Delhi: In a significant development concerning the ongoing legal proceedings related to the 2020 Delhi riots, the Supreme Court of India has denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The apex court’s decision hinges on its observation that the cases of Khalid and Imam stand on a “different footing” compared to other accused individuals, a distinction primarily drawn from the extensive evidence presented by the Delhi Police.
The Delhi Police, in its chargesheet, has painted a detailed picture of an alleged conspiracy, positioning Umar Khalid as the “central figure” and Sharjeel Imam as his “protégé” in the purported orchestration of violence. The police claim to have amassed substantial evidence, including call detail records, clips of speeches, and witness statements, all pointing towards the alleged coordination of violent activities. This body of evidence appears to have been a crucial factor in the Supreme Court’s assessment.
Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, and Sharjeel Imam, an activist and research scholar, have been in judicial custody under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) since their arrests in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy case. The police’s narrative posits that Khalid played a pivotal role in planning and instigating the violence, while Imam allegedly acted under his guidance, contributing to the broader conspiracy.
The ‘different footing’ mentioned by the Supreme Court underscores the specific nature of the allegations and the evidence marshaled against Khalid and Imam. Unlike general accusations, the police have presented material that, they argue, directly links these two individuals to the planning and execution aspects of the unrest. For instance, the analysis of their phone call records is alleged to show patterns of communication consistent with coordination. Similarly, clips of their speeches are cited as containing inflammatory content that purportedly incited violence, and witness statements are presented to corroborate their alleged roles in the larger scheme.
The court’s decision reinforces the gravity with which the evidence presented by the investigating agency is being viewed at this stage of the judicial process. While bail is a fundamental right, its denial, particularly in cases involving serious charges like those under UAPA, often reflects the court’s prima facie satisfaction with the prosecution’s evidence suggesting involvement in the alleged crimes.
This ruling by the Supreme Court marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle for both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. It means they will continue to remain in custody as the trial progresses, placing a renewed focus on the strength and admissibility of the Delhi Police’s evidence during the full trial proceedings. The legal teams for Khalid and Imam will undoubtedly continue to challenge the veracity and interpretation of the evidence as the case unfolds in lower courts. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the ‘different footing’ highlights the perceived specific and central roles attributed to them by the prosecution, setting their cases apart from others implicated in the wider Delhi riots investigations.
good piece of article