After four years without bail, Umar Khalid back in high court

Arguing for bail once again before Delhi High Court, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid contended that he should be granted bail based on the time he has spent in jail (well over four years), the lack of a prima facie case against him, and in parity with other accused individuals facing more serious allegations, who have been granted bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

This argument was presented by Khalid’s counsel, senior advocate Trideep Pais, before the division bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur. He concluded his submissions on the plea on Friday.

Pais argued that Khalid should be granted bail owing to the length of time he has spent in prison and in alignment with the four co-accused who have already been released on bail in the same case. He maintained that, like the other accused, Khalid was seeking bail on grounds of prolonged detention as an undertrial.

Addressing the allegations against Khalid, Pais pointed out that no evidence had been recovered from him or as a result of his disclosures. “There has been no recovery made from me or at my instigation. I am not mentioned in any of the FIRs concerning the 2020 violence. No physical evidence has been found to link me or anyone else to any violent act,” said Pais arguing for Khalid. He emphasised that he was not mentioned in any of the FIRs related to the 2020 violence, and no physical evidence had been found linking him to any violent acts.

He further clarified that there were no accusations against him regarding the procurement or receipt of funds, nor any involvement in terrorist or violent activities. The only FIR in which he had been implicated related to violence, but he had been discharged from that case.

Pais added that the sole overt act attributed to Khalid was a speech he gave in Amravati, Maharashtra. “It does not incite violence. I was thousands of miles away from Delhi, and there was no reaction from the crowd. It was a speech invoking Gandhian principles of non-violence, urging protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act,” he argued.

Furthermore, he stated that the speech had not been widely heard, and the prosecution had relied on a selectively edited clip to create a narrative for political exploitation.

Turning to the WhatsApp group conversations cited by the Delhi Police, Pais clarified that although Khalid was part of three groups, he had not sent any messages in two of them. He explained that in the third group, the only message he sent was in response to a request for the location of a protest site.

Pais also addressed an incident when Khalid was in Bihar. He stated that he received a call from a senior Delhi Police officer asking him to help call off a protest near the police headquarters due to the heightened security situation caused by then US President Donald Trump’s visit to Delhi. Khalid then shared this message in the group.

Regarding the alleged conspiratorial meetings, Pais argued that in the meeting supposedly involving criminal conspiracy, the participants were not even in the same location. He explained that the prosecution was relying solely on call detail records to suggest the accused were in close proximity, while other meetings included people who were not even accused.

Pais pointed out that individuals such as activist Yogendra Yadav, who were present at these meetings, had not been named as accused. He stressed that there were no allegations of criminal activity arising from these meetings, and the statements supporting the meeting made no reference to plans for violence.

On the claim that the meeting was secret, Pais highlighted that photographs of the meeting had been posted on Facebook, undermining any suggestion of secrecy. He also noted that the co-accused who had attended the meeting had already been granted bail.

Pais also contested the prosecution’s claim that the numerous phone calls exchanged between group members indicated criminal activity. He explained that many individuals had made calls, with some being named as accused while others had not.

Khalid was arrested on 13 September 2020 under UAPA for his alleged involvement in the riots in north-east Delhi in February 2020, and has been accused of being one of the “key conspirators” in the riots.

The Delhi Police FIR against Khalid includes charges under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA, sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.

Khalid’s lawyer pointed out that the chargesheet was prepared on 10 September 2020, just three days before he was arrested. “It was prepared for my arrest. The violence occurred in December and February and the so-called secret meeting in January. There has been no recovery of weapons either,” said Pais.

The trial court first denied Khalid’s bail application in March 2022. He subsequently approached the High Court, which also denied him relief in October 2022, prompting him to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police to respond to the matter. However, his plea before the Supreme Court was adjourned 14 times.

On 14 February 2024, Khalid withdrew his bail plea before the Supreme Court, citing a change in circumstances. A Supreme Court bench comprising justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was scheduled to hear the matter on that date, but senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Khalid, informed the Court that the plea was being withdrawn with plans to approach the trial court for appropriate relief “due to a change in circumstances”.

On 28 May, the trial court rejected Khalid’s second bail petition, leading to his current appeal before the high court.