Umar Khalid Bail : "Can Demonstrate In 20 Mins That There's No Case", Sibal Says; Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Citing Paucity Of Time

A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Dipankar Datta was hearing Khalid’s special leave petition challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to deny him bail last year. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, said, "He is a young student, PhD holder, three years behind the bars, it is going on."

"There's no chance of framing charges yet, how long will you keep him there?" Sibal said. "This is not a matter that they should oppose like this," he said. "He has never done any overt act, they have admitted to it. The only thing is there is some conspiracy they are talking about, conspiracy for what? None of the sections apply." Sibal said. 

When the bench expressed inclination to adjourn the hearing citing paucity of time, Sibal pleaded that the matter be heard today itself. "I can demonstrate in twenty minutes that there is no case at all."

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi police, said that the delay in the trial proceedings is due to the accused filing interlocutory applications. "They are not allowing the charges to be framed..." ASG said adding that the Section 207 CrPC application went on for two years. Sibal in response said that five supplementary chargesheets have been filed in the case.  He also pointed out that three co-accused(Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha) in the case have been granted by bail by the Delhi High Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the bench adjourned the matter and posted it on November 1. The bench directed that the matter be listed within the first five items on that day.

This case has previously witnessed the recusal of one of the judges, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, who was slated to hear it last month. The hearing has been adjourned six times since notice was issued by the top court in the activist's plea on May 18 – once on July 12 after the Delhi police sought more time to file a counter-affidavit, on July 24 after a letter of adjournment was circulated by Khalid's counsel, on August 9 after Justice Mishra recused himself, on August 18, when the matter was listed on a miscellaneous day, on September 5 at the behest of the appellant, and again on September 12. 

Background

Khalid, a former scholar and researcher from Jawaharlal Nehru University, is one of the accused in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 North-East Delhi communal riots case. He has been accused along with 59 others, including Pinjra Tod members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.

Others who have been charge-sheeted in the case include former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Mohd Salim Khan, and Athar Khan.

Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam were the last to be charge-sheeted in the case. Zargar, Kalita, Narwal, Tanha, and Jahan have already been granted bail. Kalita, Narwhal, and Tanha were granted bail by a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani last year.

Khalid has been booked under Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Last year, in October, the Delhi High Court upheld a March 2022 order of a trial court denying Khalid bail. A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) were geared towards the 2020 North-East Delhi riots through various ‘conspiratorial meetings’ held from December 2019 till February 2020, some of which were also attended by Khalid.

In the order, the high court also took a serious view of Khalid using the words ‘inquilabli salam’ (revolutionary salute) and ‘krantikari istiqbal’ (revolutionary welcome) in a speech given in Amaravati in February 2020, considering it to be an incitement of violence. “Revolution by itself isn’t always bloodless, which is why it is contradistinctly used with the prefix - a ‘bloodless’ revolution. So, when we use the expression ‘revolution’, it is not necessarily bloodless,” the Delhi High Court observed. During the case, the bench also questioned the UAPA accused for using the world ‘jumla’ against the prime minister, remarking that there should be a ‘lakshman rekha’ for criticism.

Khalid challenged the Delhi High Court’s verdict before the Supreme Court and in May of this year, a bench headed by Justice Bopanna issued notice in his plea. Earlier that month, another bench of the apex court had dismissed Delhi police’s plea against a high court order granting bail to co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita.

Case Title

Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023