New Delhi [India], July 4 (ANI): Delhi’s Karkardooma Court on Saturday dismissed the regular bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, observing that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai dismissed both applications after hearing submissions made by counsel for the accused and the Delhi Police.
While rejecting the pleas, the court observed, “Further, importantly, this Court has no option but to follow the judgment dated January 5, 2026, as passed by the Supreme Court, whereby the petitions of both the applicants were dismissed.”
The trial court noted that, in its January 5 judgment, the Supreme Court had held that the applicants would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail only after the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or on completion of one year from the date of the order, whichever was earlier.
“Thus, following the said order of the Supreme Court, this Court cannot entertain the applications and it bail to the applicants. Infact the applications are not maintainable and they are hereby dismissed,” ASJ Sameer Bajpai order on July 4.
The court also recorded that counsel for both applicants argued there had been a change in circumstances following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, which they contended warranted reconsideration of the bail applications.
However, the court observed that it could not even examine whether circumstances had changed in view of the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in its January 5 judgment.
The trial court further noted that although counsel for the accused submitted that the divergence of opinion between the judgments in Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi had already been referred to a larger Bench, the issue remained unsettled. Consequently, the court held that it could not consider the present bail applications on any ground.
Opposing the pleas, the prosecution argued that the Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petitions (SLPs) of both applicants on January 5 and that Umar Khalid’s review petition was also dismissed on April 16. In these circumstances, the prosecution submitted that the trial court could not grant bail.
The prosecution further argued that there had been no substantial change in circumstances since the Supreme Court’s order that would justify reconsideration of the applicants’ bail pleas.
It also submitted that while the Supreme Court in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi had expressed serious reservations regarding the application of the judgment in KA Najeeb in Gulfisha Fatima, and observed that the reasoning in Gulfisha Fatima amounted to a hollowing out of the three-judge Bench decision in KA Najeeb, the issue had already been referred to a larger Bench.
The prosecution also pointed out that while hearing the case of co-accused Tasleem, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court had taken note of the divergence of opinion between Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, granted interim bail for six months to co-accused Tasleem and Khalid Saifi, and referred the legal question to a larger Bench.
Counsel for Umar Khalid relied upon a recent Delhi High Court judgment in Khuram Parvez v. National Investigation Agency, submitting that bail had been granted in that case on the ground of prolonged incarceration of about four-and-a-half years after considering the relevant judicial precedents. It was argued that since Umar Khalid had remained in custody for more than six years, he too should be granted bail.
The defence further submitted that there had been positive changes in circumstances since the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment and urged the trial court to grant regular bail. Alternatively, it sought interim bail for six months on the same lines as granted by the Supreme Court in the Tasleem case.
Sharjeel Imam’s bail application stated that there had been no significant developments even after six months of the Supreme Court’s judgment and that he had remained in custody for nearly six years.
The application, filed through Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, stated that despite the passage of more than six months since the Supreme Court’s judgment, there had been no meaningful progress in the trial. It submitted that arguments on the charge had still not concluded and the matter had not even reached the stage of framing charges.
The plea also contended that the Bench which delivered the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima had subsequently, on May 22, granted interim bail to co-accused in the Tasleem Ahmed case in the same larger conspiracy case and simultaneously referred the legal issue governing bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India. (ANI)
Related reading
