Former JNU student leader Umar Khalid on Wednesday withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court due to "changed circumstances". A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Muthal allowed his withdrawal petition.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Khalid told the top court that the application is being withdrawn in view of "change in circumstances" and to seek bail afresh before the trial court.
In March 2022, a Delhi Sessions Court denied bail to Umar Khalid after hearing his case for nearly 8 months. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said a preliminary assessment of the case showed a premeditated conspiracy surrounding the 2020 Delhi Riots that Khalid was involved in.
In April 2022, Khalid appealed against the Session court’s order before the Delhi High Court.
On October 18 2022, a Delhi High Court bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnesh Bhatnagar rejected Khalid’s plea for bail. The bench observed that the prosecution’s case and the chargesheet made out a prima facie case against Khalid. Saying that Khalid was in constant touch with other co-accused and Khalid's act prima facie qualified as “terrorist act” under the UAPA, the high court denied him bail.
ALSO READ | Umar Khalid's Bail Plea Adjourned Again: A Timeline Of Court Hearings
The Khalid approached the Supreme Court in April 2023, against the Delhi High Court order denying him bail.
In May 2023, a divisional bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli heard Khalid's petition and issued a notice to the Delhi government seeking a response within six weeks.
Since then, Khalid's hearing has seen at least 13 adjournments and one recusal from a judge.
ALSO READ | Bilkis Bano Case: Why Gujarat Govt Wants Supreme Court To Delete Remarks From Judgment
Khalid has been charged under the IPC, 1967 Arms Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He has also been charged for rioting (Sec. 147 IPC), rioting with a deadly weapon (Sec. 148 IPC), murder (Sec. 302 IPC), attempted murder (Sec. 307 IPC), sedition (Sec. 124A IPC). He has also been accused of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony (Sec. 153A IPC).