The Supreme Court has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the conspiracy case related to the Delhi riots. The Court stated that delays in trial in UAPA cases cannot be used as a trump card for seeking bail.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has delivered a significant and strict verdict in the conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. The apex court has outrightly rejected the bail pleas of accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The Court stated that delays in trial cannot be a ground or a trump card for obtaining bail. With this decision, the Supreme Court also clarified that courts must exercise extra caution when considering bail in cases involving national security.
Distinct from Other Accused
The Supreme Court bench stated in its order that the roles of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are distinct and more serious compared to other co-accused. According to the Court, the nature of the allegations against them and their alleged role in the conspiracy cannot be ignored. On this basis, the court dismissed their bail petitions. The Court clarified that this decision is based solely on legal merits and has nothing to do with any political ideology.
Bail Granted to Five Other Accused
However, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the same case. These include Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Mohammad Sameer Khan, Shadab Ahmed, and Shifa Ur Rehman. The Court stated that the roles of these accused are of a different nature and they can be granted bail on strict conditions based on the available records. It was also clarified that the grant of bail does not mean that the charges have been weakened or the case is over.
Bail Does Not Mean Relief from Charges
The Supreme Court specifically stated in its order that granting bail does not diminish the charges in any way. The court said that bail is only a temporary relief and should not be interpreted as meaning that the prosecution's case is weak. The accused who have been granted bail will have to comply with around 12 strict conditions. If any of these conditions are violated, the trial court will have full authority to cancel the bail.
Argument of Delay in UAPA Cases
The Court also made important observations regarding the manner of considering bail petitions filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Supreme Court said that the question is not of an abstract debate about which is greater, the law or the Constitution. The real question is how courts should examine bail petitions under stringent laws like UAPA when delay in prosecution is cited.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to a speedy trial is available to every citizen under the Constitution. The court said that prolonged detention should not be arbitrary and delay in prosecution should not be seen as punishment. But the Court also added that this principle does not automatically apply in cases involving national security and the integrity of the state. In such cases, the courts have to evaluate every aspect in depth.
Different Yardstick for National Security Cases
The Court also stated in its decision that it is necessary to assess the role of each accused separately and carefully in charges leveled under laws like UAPA. The court acknowledged that the normal evaluation of liberty is different in such cases because the allegations are related to the foundations of the state and internal security. Therefore, the mere argument that the trial is delayed cannot by itself be a b basis for bail.
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the bail petitions of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, clarified that the seriousness of the allegations against them cannot be ignored. The Court said that the material available in their case and the prosecution's claims indicate that their role is at a different level than other accused. For this reason, the question of granting them bail does not arise at this time.
