Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam file fresh bail pleas in Delhi court

A Delhi court has issued notices to the Delhi Police regarding fresh bail applications filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The two are seeking release in connection with the larger conspiracy case related to the Delhi riots.

Both Khalid and Imam, in their applications, highlight a "change in circumstance." They specifically reference a May 18 judgment by a Supreme Court bench. This ruling granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case, where the apex court expressed "serious reservations" about prior reasoning that delayed bail. The Supreme Court noted that prolonged incarceration and trial delays can override statutory bail restrictions under the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).

“

The applicant has been in custody for approaching six years. The trial has not progressed even to framing of charge. The prosecution proposes to examine more than 900 witnesses. On the undisputed facts, KA Najeeb properly applied as declared binding by Syed Iftikhar Andrabi applies with full force to the applicant’s case.

The Supreme Court also took exception to a previous direction that Khalid and Imam could only revive their bail pleas after protected witnesses were examined or after one year, whichever came first. Imam, who has been in custody for nearly six years, argues that the trial has not even progressed to the framing of charges, with the prosecution proposing to examine over 900 witnesses. He contends that the principles laid down in the KA Najeeb case, as applied in the Andrabi judgment, fully apply to his situation.

Khalid, a researcher and scholar, has been in custody for over five years and nine months since his arrest in September 2019. His bail plea asserts that this increased period of incarceration constitutes a further change in circumstances warranting his release. The court had previously rejected their bail pleas on January 5, stating that Khalid and Imam played a "central and formative role" in the alleged conspiracy and that prolonged incarceration alone was insufficient grounds for bail in UAPA cases, relying on a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that tightened bail standards under the act.

“

It is pertinent to mention that the applicant, 38, who is a researcher and scholar, was arbitrarily arrested in the impugned FIR on September 13 and has spent over 5 years and 9 months in custody as on the date of filing the present application. As such, the increased period of incarceration constitutes a further change in circumstances entitling the applicant to bail.