The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petitions of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid and student activist Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots.
The bench also rejected Khalid and Imam’s claim of parity with co-accused Tasleem Ahmad and Khalid Saifi, who were granted interim bail by the Supreme Court, noting that the allegations concerning their roles were different. It added: “In view of the overall discussion and the conditions laid down, this court cannot find fault in the trial court’s order. The role of Tasleem Ahmad and Khalid Saifi is different from Umar Khalid and Sharjeel, and parity cannot be sought. The Delhi Police, represented by additional solicitor general SV Raju and special public prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, opposed the pleas, submitting that the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court barred their release at this stage.
A bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Dinesh Bhatt said that while denying them bail on January 5, the Supreme Court had given them liberty to seek fresh bail either after the examination of protected witnesses or upon the expiry of one year, whichever was earlier. Because their alleged roles were different, the prosecution also argued that Khalid and Imam were alleged co-conspirators and could not claim parity with Ahmad and Saifi.
The high court said it could not modify the condition imposed by the Supreme Court and was bound by “judicial discipline”. It also declined to rely on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs NIA, in which the apex court had expressed “serious reservations” about the reasoning adopted while denying bail to Khalid and Imam. The high court noted that the Andrabi judgment did not concern the “North East Delhi riots”. These two conditions would show that the specific liberty is clear and conditional, and this court would not be in a position to modify the condition,” the court said.
“Perusal of the decision in Gulfisha Fatima is concerned, the Supreme Court has given them liberty only upon the happening of two circumstances — examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year, whichever is earlier.
