The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled that expediting the trial in the Delhi riots conspiracy case would not serve the interests of either the accused or the State, as it involves voluminous evidence and extensive investigation. A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur noted that the Delhi Police had filed a chargesheet extending to 3,000 pages, backed by nearly 30,000 pages of electronic records.
The Bench observed that the police had carried out a comprehensive investigation that led to multiple arrests. In this context, the judges remarked that “the pace of the trial will progress naturally.” They stressed that “a hurried trial would also be detrimental to the rights of both the Appellants and the State”, Bar and Bench reported.
The Court pointed out that the matter currently stood at the stage of arguments on the framing of charges. This, the Bench said, was an indication that proceedings were moving forward. Lawyers representing the accused had cited delays in the trial as a ground to seek bail.
The Court rejected the bail applications of nine accused — Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima. All of them are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the conspiracy case.
Delhi High Court’s observations on Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
In its detailed order, the Bench specifically referred to speeches made by Umar Khalid in Amravati around the time of the visit of then US President Donald Trump, noting that such speeches “cannot be lightly brushed aside.”
The Court further observed that both Khalid and Imam had played a serious role in the alleged conspiracy, remarking that they had delivered “inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilization of members of the Muslim Community.”
Highlighting the strength of the material placed before it at this stage, the Court said, “The probative value of the evidence against the Appellants Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, prima facie and at this stage, cannot be branded as weak.”
Speaking to news agency ANI, Advocate Salim Naved, lawyer of one of the accused, Gulfisha Fatima, said, "High Court has dismissed all the bail applications. We had taken grounds of massive delay in the trial. Even then, the High Court has seen fit to dismiss the bail applications. We will approach the Supreme Court immediately against this, and we are hopeful of a sympathetic hearing from the Supreme Court. I appeared on behalf of Gulfisha Fatima... They have been in custody for almost six years now... We want a speedy trial. A trial of 1000 witnesses needs to be done and the government has not been able to start it for the last five years..."
Earlier in the day, another bench of the High Court had dismissed a separate bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed in relation to the same case.
Prolonged Incarceration Cited by Defence
The accused had sought bail primarily on the grounds of delay in the trial, which they argued had resulted in prolonged incarceration. The trial court is yet to formally frame charges against them. Umar Khalid, who was arrested in September 2020, faces charges including criminal conspiracy, rioting, and unlawful assembly under the UAPA, among other offences.
This marks Khalid’s second attempt at securing bail. The trial court had initially denied him bail in March 2022, after which he approached the High Court. His plea was again rejected in October 2022, prompting him to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
In May 2023, the Supreme Court sought a response from the Delhi Police, with the plea being adjourned 14 times. On 14 February 2024, Khalid withdrew his Supreme Court bail petition, citing a change in circumstances.
Legal Arguments, Evidence Under Scrutiny
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Umar Khalid, addressed the WhatsApp group conversations cited by Delhi Police as evidence. According to Bar and Bench, he explained, “Merely being on a group is not any indication of anything wrong, in this case I have not even said anything. I only shared the location of a protest site when someone asked for it. Someone sent me a message. If someone chooses to inform me, it is not attributable to me. Anyway, there was no criminality in the message.”
Pais further emphasised that no allegations of violence or fundraising for illegal activities had been levelled against Khalid, adding that his speeches were rooted in Gandhian principles.
Opposing the bail pleas, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi Police, contended that the accused were conspiring to divide the nation along religious lines. “Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were preparing to divide the nation, cutting the nation on the basis of religion. They are all acting in concert, Gufisha, Umar, everyone - they are in touch with each other by the WhatsApp group and conspiracy is taking place,” Mehta argued.
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid represented Shifa Ur Rehman, while Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Abdul Khalid Saifi.