Now Reading: Delhi Police opposes Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam bail pleas in High Court
-
01
Delhi Police opposes Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam bail pleas in High Court
Delhi Police opposes Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam bail pleas in High Court
The Delhi Police has told the Delhi High Court that the fresh bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case are "illegal" and an…
The Delhi Police has told the Delhi High Court that the fresh bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case are "illegal" and an attempt to mislead the court. The police argued that the Supreme Court judgment in an unrelated case does not constitute a change in circumstances to justify bail.
The police in its reply stated that Khalid and Imam are among the "masterminds" of the riots and referred to the Supreme Court's order in Gulfisha Fatima's case, which held that their "risk profiles" are "markedly dissimilar" from other accused. The police also said the Supreme Court placed an "embargo" against granting them bail under the UAPA scheme.
Khalid and Imam had moved the High Court after a trial court rejected their third bail applications. The Supreme Court had earlier denied them bail but said they could renew their pleas after one year from its judgment or after examination of protected witnesses. The High Court had issued notice on the pleas last month.
Indian Opinion Analysis
This case is part of a longer legal tussle where the Supreme Court itself has referred the interpretation of its own precedent in Union of India v KA Najeeb to a larger bench, creating uncertainty over the standard for bail under UAPA. The trial court had said it could not consider bail until that larger bench settles the issue. The police's opposition now forces the High Court to decide whether the referral of the Najeeb judgment to a larger bench amounts to a change in circumstance for Khalid and Imam. The next step is the High Court's hearing, which could clarify how lower courts must treat pending larger bench references in bail matters.
The case involves the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which has stringent bail provisions requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is not prima facie true.
Source: livelaw.in
This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.
