4 min readNew DelhiNov 2, 2023 12:44 PM IST
First published on: Nov 1, 2023 at 03:09 PM IST
In January 2024, the Delhi High Court will begin hearing afresh the bail pleas of several people, including Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima, who were booked in the Delhi Police’s ‘larger conspiracy case’ pertaining to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur Wednesday fixed the hearing of a batch of 10 pleas on different dates in January and February. The bench will begin with hearing Imam’s plea which has been listed on January 15, 2024. Imam, who has been in jail for over three years, moved the High Court last April, wherein arguments have not commenced yet.
Previously, the batch matter was being heard by a special bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, who had also reserved verdict in three pleas moved by Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Salim Malik on July 28. However, following Justice Mridul’s appointment as Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court last month, the entire batch (including the ones in which the verdict was reserved) will now be heard afresh. On July 5, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended Justice Mridul for appointment as the Chief Justice of Manipur High Court. Three months later, on October 16, the Centre notified his appointment.
The state’s plea against bail granted to former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan will also be heard by the bench.
Apart from Imam and Fatima, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider and Shadab Ahmed have also been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the anti-CAA and NRC protests.
On October 18, 2022, the bench of Justices Mridul and Bhatnagar had denied bail to Umar Khalid who was also booked in the same FIR. In its 52-page judgment, the bench had examined the phraseology used by Khalid in his speeches, holding that a call to revolution may affect many beyond those who were visibly present.
The HC had observed that Khalid’s name was recurrently mentioned from the beginning of the alleged conspiracy till the culmination of the riots: “Different protected witnesses have stated the role of the appellant and other accused persons and about the open discussion on violence, riots, finance and weapons”. Agreeing with the trial court’s finding, the bench had said the trial court had looked at numerous witness statements wherein Khalid’s role in the “context of conspiracy and riots was apparent”.
Arguments have been made in some pleas in the batch. While arguing Khalid Saifi’s plea before the bench led by Justice Mridul, Senior Advocate Rebecca John had said the prosecution’s case is based on “alarming and frightening statements” and not on any actual evidence.
John had argued that “conspiracies are hatched in darkness and silence” while Saifi was participating in public meetings during the agitation against the CAA over two years ago.
For Gulfisha, advocate Sushil Bajaj had argued that the right to protest is a fundamental right and her participation in the protests against the CAA was based on a genuine belief that the position of her community in the country was “threatened”.
On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for the Delhi Police in the batch, had argued that the UAPA case against Saifi is not “malicious” and the invocation of the law against the accused persons has been tested by courts on various occasions. Prasad had said “every minute detail” had been captured by the trial court in its order rejecting Saifi’s bail.
The HC was hearing a plea against encroachment on 300 hectares of land in the Southern Ridge. (File) 
Share
