Dismay As Delhi High Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of Umar Khalid, Others

On Tuesday afternoon, a bench of Justices Naveen Chawla and Shailender Kaur dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, sparking widespread outrage among legal experts and commentators. The accused have been in jail for over five years without trial, and the court’s decision to deny bail has been met with sharp criticism for what many see as a grave miscarriage of justice.

Legal commentator Saurav Das expressed his shock and dismay immediately after the verdict. “Literally gasped when Justice Shailender Kaur pronounced ‘all appeals dismissed’. The persons have been in jail for five years! Their bail pleas have gone through multiple benches, heard, re-heard, kept pending, and now, ultimately, dismissed in cold (sic),” he said. Das’ words captured the frustration felt by many who have followed the case closely.

A court watcher described the tense atmosphere in the courtroom at the moment the verdict was delivered. “Between the judges saying ‘all appeals dismissed’ and the solicitor-general saying ‘grateful to your lordships, extremely grateful’, there was a three-second silence and in that silence, you could hear the sound of all our collective hope of fairness and justice being shattered,” the observer recounted.

Constitutional expert Gautam Bhatia did not mince words in his condemnation of the ruling. “One of the worst judicial injustices in recent times, now perpetuated for indefinitely longer. The cases against these people are built on foundations of smoke; to justify their imprisonment without trial for 5+ years, on each occasion, court judgments lack all reason,” he posted on X, highlighting the perceived lack of substantive evidence in the case.

Supreme Court lawyer Anas Tanveer also voiced his anger and disappointment. “This is sheer injustice. Exasperated doesn’t even begin to cover it. Bail denied when trial hasn’t even started, 5+ years behind bars with no case to stand on. Hoped the bench would see reason…” he lamented, underscoring the prolonged detention without trial.

The accused in the case include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed. The bail pleas were dismissed by Justice Kaur, effectively extending their incarceration despite the absence of a trial.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, opposed the bail pleas vehemently. “If you are doing something against the nation, then you better be in jail till you are acquitted or convicted,” he asserted. Mehta further accused the above persons of intending to “globally defame the nation by choosing a particular day for more rioting and more arson,” as reported by Livelaw.

One silver lining in the dismissal is that the accused can now appeal to the Supreme Court, a legal avenue that was previously unavailable while the high court was considering their pleas.

Many legal experts have expressed concern over the quality of evidence presented by the Delhi Police. The prosecution’s case largely hinges on portions of speeches, membership in WhatsApp groups, and the sending of messages, which have been deemed sufficient to charge the accused with serious offenses such as criminal conspiracy, sedition, and rioting.

During the hearings, Khalid’s defense, led by senior advocate Trideep Pais, argued that mere membership in WhatsApp groups without actively sending messages does not constitute criminality. Pais also highlighted that no monetary or material recovery had been made from Khalid, and that the alleged secret meeting he was accused of attending on the night of February 23-24, 2020, was not secret at all.

Similarly, Sharjeel Imam’s counsel, advocate Talib Mustafa, pointed out that Imam’s alleged involvement in the riots was limited to activities before January 23, 2020—almost a month before the riots began. Mustafa noted that the last overt act cited by the police was a speech Imam delivered in Bihar.

The trial court had previously remarked on Imam’s speeches, stating that he “craftily clothed his speech in which he avoided the mention of communities other than Muslim community but the intended victims of chakka jaam were members of communities other than Muslim community,” reflecting the contentious nature of the charges.

In February, Khalid’s lawyer emphasized that charges against the accused had yet to be framed and that the prosecution had listed 800 witnesses to be examined by both sides. The defense argued that detaining the accused for years without trial was unreasonable, but this plea failed to sway the court.

Saurav Das summed up the situation poignantly: “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception, we are told. Yet, for five years now, the ten young Muslim scholars, activists have been imprisoned without trial on charges so frivolous that they would collapse under the slightest judicial scrutiny. The High Court’s refusal to intervene, to insist on first principles, is not delay or caution: it is complicity. The two judges have treated liberty as expendable.”

The dismissal of bail pleas in this high-profile case has reignited debates about the right to a fair and speedy trial, the presumption of innocence, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties. As the accused prepare to take their case to the Supreme Court, the legal community and civil rights advocates continue to watch closely, hoping for justice to prevail.