Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid and student activist Sharjeel Imam, accused in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, have moved the Supreme Court seeking bail, arguing that the one-year embargo imposed by the court on January 5 is nearing its end even as the examination of protected witnesses is unlikely to be completed by then.
The police alleged this was deliberately timed to garner international attention. The riots followed a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act on February 24, 2020, that coincided with the visit of the US President.
Khalid has filed his plea through advocate N Sai Vinod, while Imam has approached the top court through advocate Fauzia Shakil. The petitions filed on Wednesday rely on the court’s observations denying them bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case while giving them liberty to revive their bail pleas after the examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year, whichever is earlier. Both had later approached the Delhi high court, which turned down their bail pleas on September 30, citing the one-year embargo fixed by the top court. Challenging this dismissal, the two have urged the top court to consider the present position as they remain incarcerated for six years and the prosecution has failed to examine even one of the more than 900 witnesses named in the case. There are 47 protected witnesses, according to the prosecution.
The court had held that the role attributed to the duo stood on a “qualitatively different footing” as it enlarged five accused persons on bail in the riots case while segregating the case of Khalid and Imam. The court had said, “We are of the opinion that on the completion of the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, or upon the expiry of a period of one year from the date of this order, whichever is earlier, these two appellants would be at liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail before the jurisdictional court. The high court bench of justices Pratibha M Singh and Dinesh Bhatt said it was not possible for it to modify the Supreme Court’s order.
