Umar Khalid’s Conditional Interim Bail

After languishing in prison for over four years, first with delayed chargesheet filing, then delayed trials, and in the interim multiple denied bails, Umar Khalid, the former student leader from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has been granted a seven-day interim bail by a Delhi court to attend a family wedding, marking a significant moment in his ongoing legal battle related to the 2020 Delhi riots.

Khalid has been in custody since September 14, 2020, facing serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for his alleged involvement in a larger “conspiracy” that led to the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.

The court’s decision, made by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, allows Khalid to be released from December 28 to January 3 under strict conditions, including restrictions on social media use and contact with witnesses.

This interim bail follows multiple rejections of his regular bail applications, with the Delhi High Court previously deeming the allegations against him as “prima facie true”.

Khalid’s case has drawn significant attention, raising questions about civil liberties, the application of the UAPA, and the treatment of dissent in India. His legal team has argued that there is a lack of direct evidence linking him to the violence, and they have sought parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail. As the legal proceedings continue, Khalid’s situation remains emblematic of broader issues surrounding political dissent and judicial processes in India.

Jargon

Viewpoints 💭

  • The left views Umar Khalid’s prolonged detention under the UAPA as a suppression of dissent and a violation of civil liberties, arguing that the lack of direct evidence against him highlights the misuse of draconian laws to stifle political opposition.
  • They emphasise the selective nature of the charges, pointing out that other individuals present at the same meetings as Khalid, such as Yogendra Yadav and Rahul Roy, were not charged, suggesting a biased application of the law.
  • The left criticises the judiciary for repeatedly denying Khalid’s bail despite the principle that ‘bail is a rule, jail is an exception,’ arguing that his case exemplifies the erosion of judicial independence and fairness.
  • Khalid’s defence highlights the absence of physical evidence or recovery linking him to the riots, arguing that his speeches and actions were non-violent and that he is being targeted for his activism against the CAA and NRC.
  • Civil rights groups and human rights organisations have condemned Khalid’s arrest as part of a broader pattern of using the UAPA to silence activists and dissenters, calling for his immediate release and a review of the charges against him.
  • The left perceives Khalid’s detention as an attack on civil liberties and a misuse of the UAPA to suppress dissent, while the right views it as a necessary measure to address serious charges of conspiracy and maintain public order.
  • While the left criticises the selective application of charges and the lack of evidence against Khalid, the right emphasizes the need for strict action against those accused of inciting violence and promoting anti-national narratives.
  • The left argues that Khalid’s case highlights the erosion of judicial independence and fairness, whereas the right supports the judiciary’s decisions, citing the prima facie evidence and the potential threat to public order.
  • The left calls for Khalid’s release and a review of the charges, viewing his detention as part of a broader pattern of using the UAPA to silence activists, while the right sees his detention as justified given the gravity of the charges and the ongoing investigation.
  • The left views Khalid’s speeches and actions as non-violent and targeted for his activism, while the right argues that the evidence suggests his involvement in a larger conspiracy to incite violence and defame the government.
  • The right views Umar Khalid’s arrest and detention as justified, given the serious charges under the UAPA related to the 2020 Delhi riots, which they argue were part of a larger conspiracy to incite violence and defame the government.
  • They emphasise the need for strict measures against those accused of orchestrating riots, arguing that the evidence, including speeches and meetings, suggests Khalid’s involvement in promoting anti-national narratives.
  • The right supports the judiciary’s decision to deny Khalid’s bail, citing the prima facie evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and the potential threat to public order if he were released.
  • They argue that the use of the UAPA is necessary to address the gravity of the charges and to prevent further unrest, viewing Khalid’s case as a test of the state’s resolve to maintain law and order.
  • The right dismisses claims of selective prosecution, arguing that the legal proceedings are based on evidence and that Khalid’s prolonged detention is a result of the seriousness of the charges and the ongoing investigation.

Prominent Voices 📣

  • Umar Khalid (Activist and former JNU student leader): Denies allegations, claims targeting for activism, and emphasises his absence from the violence site and advocacy for non-violence. 1 2
  • Kapil Sibal (Senior Advocate): Highlights procedural delays and changes in circumstances in Khalid’s case, arguing for his bail. 3 4
  • Yogendra Yadav (Swaraj India Leader): Points out the selective nature of accusations, noting his own non-accusation despite presence in alleged conspiracy meetings. 5
  • Sanjay Hegde (Senior Advocate): Criticises the inconsistency in Supreme Court rulings, suggesting Khalid’s case may not have been heard by a pro-liberty Bench. 6
  • Sanjoy Ghose (Senior Advocate): Describes Khalid’s situation as a travesty of justice, noting that others accused of serious crimes receive bail more swiftly. 6
  • Rahul Roy (Filmmaker): Notes his non-accusation despite presence in alleged conspiracy meetings, questioning the selective prosecution. 5
  • Trideep Pais (Senior Advocate): Argues that there is no direct evidence against Umar Khalid, emphasising his peaceful advocacy and questioning the selective prosecution in the conspiracy case. 7 8
  • Soutik Banerjee (Advocate): Highlights the challenge Khalid’s case poses to constitutional courts in prioritising rights over UAPA’s bail restrictions, impacting Khalid’s rights under Article 21. 6
  • Delhi Police (Law Enforcement Agency): Opposes Khalid’s bail, alleging his influence in amplifying the anti-CAA narrative as part of a planned conspiracy. 9 10
  • Justice Siddharth Mridul (Delhi High Court Judge): Previously denied bail to Umar Khalid, emphasising the prima facie case against him under UAPA. 11
  • Amit Prasad (Special Public Prosecutor): Supports the prosecution’s case against Khalid, arguing against his bail. 4

Sources 📚

1
Business TodayDelhi Court grants 7-day interim bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid
2
The Munsif DailyDelhi Court Grants Umar Khalid 7-Day Interim Bail for Family Function
3
The HinduUmar Khalid to remain in jail as court denies bail
4
ThePrintUmar Khalid’s bail plea back before Delhi HC after 12 adjournments in SC. A look at case’s trajectory
5
The Times of India‘How am I an accused’: Former JNU student Umar Khalid to Delhi high court
6
The HinduFour years and counting, Umar Khalid languishes in jail without bail or trial
7
The Times of IndiaUmar Khalid gets 7-day interim bail in Delhi riots case
8
The New Indian ExpressUmar Khalid argues no evidence links him to Delhi riots conspiracy in bail plea before HC
9
Dy365Umar Khalid Granted 7-Day Bail to Attend Family Wedding in 2020 Delhi Riots Case
10
The New Indian Express2020 Delhi riots: HC lists Umar Khalid’s bail plea for hearing in UAPA case on Oct 7
11
Live Law – Indian Legal NewsDelhi Riots: High Court Adjourns Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam To November 25

Subscribe to Our Newsletter!

Stay informed and engaged with the latest political discourse by subscribing to our newsletter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

×