New Delhi: The Delhi High Court sought the city police’s stand on Wednesday on the bail plea of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid in a UAPA case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots here. A bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia issued a notice to the Delhi Police on the bail plea and asked the agency to file its reply.
The court listed Khalid’s bail plea for hearing on August 29, along with the bail pleas of other co-accused in the case, including student activist Sharjeel Imam. The court observed that the bail pleas of Imam and the other co-accused in the case were “set for hearing”.
Khalid, who was arrested by the Delhi Police in September 2020, has assailed a recent trial court order refusing to grant him bail in the case. Khalid, Imam and several others have been booked under the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots that had left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). On May 28, the trial court rejected Khalid’s plea seeking regular bail for the second time, saying its previous order dismissing his first bail application had attained finality.
“When the Delhi High Court has already dismissed the criminal appeal of the applicant (Khalid) vide order dated October 18, 2022, and thereafter, the applicant approached the Supreme Court and withdrew his petition, the order of this court as passed on March 24, 2022 (on the first bail plea) has attained finality and now, in no stretch of imagination, this court can make analysis of the facts of the case as desired by the applicant and consider the relief as prayed by him,” the trial court had said.
On October 18, 2022, the high court had upheld the dismissal of Khalid’s first bail plea and said the city police’s allegations against him are prima facie true. The high court had said admittedly, the anti-CAA protests “metamorphosed into violent riots”, which “prima facie seemed to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings” and that the statements of the witnesses indicate Khalid’s “active involvement” in the protests.
