In a significant ruling on December 5, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict in the high-profile case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The apex court denied bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting relief to five other co-accused in the same matter.
Court's Reasoning for Differential Bail Orders
The bench, as reported by legal news portal Bar and Bench, emphasized the need to examine each appeal independently. The court record clearly indicated that the appellants were not on equal footing concerning their alleged culpability. The justices stated that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing compared to the other accused individuals.
The order elaborated that offences under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are rarely confined to isolated acts, a principle reflected in the statute's design. The court expressed satisfaction that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam, attracting the high statutory threshold for bail under UAPA.
Key Observations from the Supreme Court Order
The court made several crucial observations while pronouncing its judgement:
Article 21 and Liberty: The court reaffirmed that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, occupies a central space in the Constitution. It clarified that pre-trial incarceration should not be assumed to be punitive, and any deprivation of liberty must not be arbitrary.
Judicial Scrutiny and Delay: The bench noted that inordinate delay in trial can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny of continued detention.
Role Differentiation is Key: The order stressed that disregarding the distinction between central roles and facilitatory roles would itself result in arbitrariness. This was the core rationale for treating the bail pleas differently.
Bail is not a Trial: The Supreme Court reiterated that bail proceedings are not a forum for evaluating the merits of the defence. While judicial restraint is not an abdication of duty, the court must undertake a structured enquiry to see if prima facie offences are disclosed and if the accused's role has a reasonable nexus to the crime.
Bail Granted to Five Co-Accused
In contrast to Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court allowed the bail applications of five other accused: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.
The court was careful to note that granting bail to these individuals does not indicate a dilution of the serious allegations against them. Their release is subject to approximately twelve strict conditions. The trial court retains the liberty to cancel their bail if any conditions are violated, following a hearing.
Future Recourse for Khalid and Imam
The order provided a potential future avenue for Khalid and Imam. It stated that they may be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail upon the completion of the examination of protected witnesses or after the lapse of one year from this order, whichever is earlier. This leaves the door open for reconsideration based on the progress of the trial.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's nuanced approach in UAPA cases, balancing the rigors of a special anti-terror law with the fundamental right to liberty, while making critical distinctions based on the specific roles ascribed to each accused in the alleged conspiracy.
