On February 14, as eyes were on the bail application of activist Umar Khalid that was once again listed before the Supreme Court bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal informed the court that their petition is being withdrawn from the court in view of “change in circumstances”. It is essential to note that Khalid’s bail petition had been adjourned by the court 14 times. In the past and many had pointed fingers at the Master of the Roster for withdrawing his bail petition from senior judges and shifting it before Trivedi’s bench, who is a relatively junior judge, in contravention to the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
As per a report in LiveLaw, the Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn the bail petition filed by the JNU scholar in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Khalid, submitted that the petition is being withdrawn in view of “change in circumstances” and sought to file the bail afresh before the trial court.
“Bail matter we wish to withdraw. There has been a change in circumstances, we will try our luck in the trial court, ” Sibal stated before the bench, as per LiveLaw.
It is essential to note that Sibal clarified he will continue to argue upon the separate writ petition filed by Khalid challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Notably, Khalid has been in custody since September 2020 and he was denied bail by a Delhi High court bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar on October 18, 2022. Under UAPA, Khalid has been charged under sections 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (Punishment for terrorist act), 17 (Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) and 18 (Punishment for conspiracy).
Brief Background of the case against Umar Khalid
Khalid’s appeal against the trial court’s decision to deny him bail in the case was rejected by a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar after have reserved their decision on September 9, 2022. Rejecting his application, the bench has stated while pronouncing the court order, “We don’t find any merit in the bail appeal. The bail appeal is dismissed,”
The High Court bench stated that there is “prima facie case” established against Umar Khalid in regards to the role played by him during the riots, chakka jaam and destruction of public property. The court order stated, “The protest planned was “not a typical protest” normal in political culture or democracy but one far more destructive and injurious geared towards extremely grave consequences. Thus, as per the pre-meditated plan there was an intentional blocking of roads to cause inconvenience and disruption of the essential services to the life of community residing in North-East Delhi, creating thereby panic and an alarming sense of insecurity. The attack on police personnel by women protesters in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot is the epitome of such pre-mediated plan and as such the same would prima facie be covered by the definition of ‘terrorist act’.”
Notably, Justice Siddharth Mridul had granted bail to Asif Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalitha.
Khalid has been hounded by the regime for years. His arrest in September 2020 was based on the charge of larger conspiracy to allegedly unleash violence to defame the Indian government during a visit by former US President Donald Trump. Many have fallen victim to this draconian statute which is being regularly abused often to incarcerate politically inconvenient voices, more specially so by the executive in the past 9 years. While Khalid had been was granted bail in the matter concerning Penal Code and Arms Act charges, he continues to remain in custody in connection with the Delhi Riots larger ‘conspiracy case’ concerning UAPA charges under FIR No. 59 of 2020. While granting bail concerning the IPC & Arms Act charges, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav had recognised that probability of a lengthy trial in the said matter. Importantly, the court had also noted that the material against Khalid was “sketchy” and that he cannot be incarcerated indefinitely on the basis of such evidence.
Related:
Umar Khalid’s Battle against the UAPA Charges to Continue
2023: India’s Bad Laws, what a weaponised state means for individual freedoms and indigenous rights
Bail not Jail, India’s constitutional courts’ bumpy ride towards personal liberty