New Delhi: On Tuesday, a Delhi court denied the bail application of Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader, who has been in jail since September 2020. Khalid is facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged conspiracy that led to the 2020 Delhi riots.
Background and Legal Context:
Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 under the UAPA for his purported involvement in orchestrating the communal violence that erupted in Delhi in February 2020. The riots, which coincided with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in over 50 deaths and significant property damage. Khalid, along with several others, was accused of plotting the violence as part of a larger conspiracy.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is a stringent anti-terror law in India that allows for the detention of individuals without bail for extended periods. Under UAPA, getting bail is particularly challenging because the burden of proof for granting bail is much higher compared to other criminal laws.
Khalid’s Bail Plea:
Khalid’s legal team had moved a regular bail application on grounds of prolonged detention and parity with other accused individuals who had been granted bail. The argument was that Khalid had already spent considerable time in jail and that there was no substantial evidence directly linking him to the acts of violence.
Court Proceedings and Rationale:
On May 13, the court had reserved its decision on Khalid’s bail application after hearing arguments from both sides. The Delhi police’s special public prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, describing it as “frivolous and baseless.” The prosecution argued that the severity of the charges and the evidence collected warranted continued detention.
The court ultimately rejected Khalid’s bail plea, agreeing with the prosecution’s view that his release could potentially jeopardize the investigation and public order. The decision was based on the serious nature of the allegations and the purported role Khalid played in the conspiracy.
Prosecutor’s Arguments:
The special public prosecutor emphasized the alleged involvement of Khalid in a larger conspiracy to incite communal violence. According to the prosecution, Khalid’s activities and speeches were part of a premeditated plan to cause unrest and disrupt harmony during the anti-CAA protests. The prosecutor highlighted the need to maintain public order and the risks associated with Khalid’s potential release.
Implications of the Decision:
The rejection of Khalid’s bail application underscores the stringent application of the UAPA in cases involving national security and public order. The decision highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in dealing with cases under UAPA, where bail is often denied due to the serious nature of the charges.
Khalid’s continued detention reflects the challenges faced by those accused under UAPA in securing bail, particularly in cases related to alleged conspiracies and communal violence. The court’s decision is significant in the context of the ongoing legal proceedings against the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, reinforcing the stringent legal standards applied in such matters.
Public and Legal Reactions:
The court’s decision has likely elicited varied reactions. Supporters of Khalid and human rights advocates might view it as an example of the harsh application of anti-terror laws against political dissenters. On the other hand, those concerned with national security and public order might see the decision as a necessary measure to prevent further unrest.
Overall, the rejection of Umar Khalid’s bail plea by the Delhi court is a crucial development in the legal saga surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots, reflecting the complex interplay between law, order, and civil liberties in India.
