Umar Khalid Arrest: Umar Khalid, a former student leader at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has been in prison for over four years, facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots.
His case has garnered significant attention due to its complexity and the ongoing legal battle. As of May 2024, the Sessions Court dismissed yet another bail application filed by Khalid, marking a critical moment in his protracted legal journey.
This article examines the timeline of his case, the nature of the charges, and the key moments in the court proceedings that have shaped the narrative around Umar Khalid’s imprisonment.
Background: Umar Khalid’s Arrest and Charges
Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 for his alleged role in the Delhi riots that took place in February of the same year. The riots, which were sparked by protests against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), led to the deaths of 53 people.
The violence included brutal acts like the murder of Ankit Sharma, an Intelligence Bureau officer, and Dilbar Negi, a migrant worker, both of whom were killed in horrific circumstances.
The Delhi Police alleged that Khalid was one of the main conspirators behind the riots, accusing him of inciting violence through his speeches and planning the unrest under the guise of anti-CAA protests. He was charged under the UAPA, a stringent anti-terror law, as well as sections of the Indian Penal Code related to conspiracy and incitement to violence.
Initial Bail Application and District Court Proceedings
Following his arrest, Khalid’s legal team moved for bail in July 2021, challenging the charges under the larger conspiracy case (59/2020 chargeheet).
However, the District Court rejected the bail application on March 22, 2022, stating that there was enough prima facei evidence to support the prosecution’s claims that Khalid played a significant role in orchestrating the violence.
The District Court’s judgement was based on a detailed examination of the charge sheet filed by the police, which included call records, social media posts, and statements from witnesses. The court found that Khalid’s actions and speeches suggested a calculated attempt to provoke violence, and thus, his detention under the UAPA was justified.
High Court Appeal and Interim Bail
Undeterred by the District Court’s decision, Khalid’s legal team, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, approached the Delhi High Court on April 20, 2022.
However, on October 18, 2022, the High Court too dismissed his bail application, agreeing with the lower court’s assessment that the charges against Khalid were prima facie true.
The High Court also emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the potential implications for public safety and order. Despite this setback, Khalid’s legal team sought temporary relief.
On December 12, 2022, Khalid was granted a one-week interim bail to attend his sister’s wedding. He was released from December 23 to December 30, 2022, marking the only period in the last four years when he was out of prison.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Withdrawal of SLP
After the rejection of his bail by the High Court, Khalid approached the Supreme Court in April 2023 with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the earlier orders. Notably, this move came six months after the High Court’s decision, raising questions about the delay in approaching the apex court.
In the subsequent hearings, Khalid’s bail hearing was adjourned 14 times, with his own legal team requesting the adjournments on seven occasions. On February 14, 2024, Kapil Sibal, Khalid’s lead counsel, withdrew the SLP from the Supreme Court, citing “a change in circumstances.” Sibal announced that they would “try their luck” in the Sessions Court instead, though the nature of these changed circumstances was not elaborated upon at the time.
Sessions Court Ruling: Dismissal of Bail in May 2024
On May 29, 2024, the Sessions Court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, dismissed Khalid’s fresh bail application. This marked yet another major blow to Khalid’s attempts to secure release from prison.
In his ruling, Judge Bajpai noted that both the predecessor Sessions Court and the High Court had previously found that the case against Khalid was prima facie true. Khalid’s legal team, led by advocate Trideep Pais, had argued that the delay in the trial proceedings and changes in the legal landscape warranted a reconsideration of his bail. However, the court found these arguments insufficient, particularly in light of the seriousness of the charges.
The court also highlighted that Khalid’s team had failed to specify what exactly had changed in the legal circumstances that would justify his release on bail. Despite the claims of a delay in proceedings, the court emphasized that such delays were not unusual in cases of this nature, especially those involving UAPA charges.
The Legal Arguments: Delay in Proceedings and Change in Law
Khalid’s defence centered around two primary arguments:
- Delay in Proceedings: His legal team argued that the prolonged nature of the trial and the frequent adjournments were infringing on his right to a fair and speedy trial. However, the prosecution countered that the delays were not solely due to the prosecution but were also caused by requests for adjournments from Khalid’s own legal team.
- Change in Law: Khalid’s counsel pointed to recent legal developments, particularly in the interpretation of UAPA provisions, arguing that these changes warranted a fresh look at the charges against him. However, the court found that these alleged changes in law were either too minor to affect the case or had not been adequately substantiated in the arguments presented.
Umar Khalid’s case continues to be a focal point in the larger debate over the use of UAPA and the state’s handling of dissent and protests.
While his legal team maintains that Khalid is being unfairly targeted for his political beliefs and activism, the courts have consistently found the charges against him to be serious and credible.
With his latest bail application dismissed, Khalid remains in prison, and it is unclear when or if his legal team will again approach the Supreme Court for relief. As the legal proceedings drag on, the case serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities of the Indian judicial system, particularly in cases involving political dissent and national security.
