Day after SC’s reminder on bail rule, Umar Khalid’s interim bail plea rejected
The court cited lack of necessity for his attendance at the ritual and noted that his mother has support for her upcoming surgery.
Refusing any relief on the grounds of his mother’s surgery, the court observed that he has five sisters, and thought they do not live in the vicinity, “they are definitely expected to come” to help their mother. (Express File Photo) Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Court, while refusing the interim bail request, held that “attending the Chehlum ceremony (observed on the 40th day after death) of his uncle is not that necessary”, and that “things would have been different if the ceremony was of a person who was in immediate relation” with Khalid.
“… if the relation was so immediate and thick, (Khalid) would have asked for the release at the time of death of his uncle only and not now after such a long time. Therefore, the court does not find his reason to be just,” ASJ Bajpai recorded.
Refusing any relief on the grounds of his mother’s surgery, the court observed that he has five sisters, and thought they do not live in the vicinity, “they are definitely expected to come” to help their mother.
The court also reasoned that Khalid’s father is “also there to take care of the mother,” adding that the surgery is “very simple” and there seems to be no actual requirement or help” required from Khalid.
Khalid is accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, facing charges under the stringent anti-terror law.
While noting that Khalid and other co-accused in the case have “never flouted conditions imposed by the court”, it, however, recorded: “But it doesn’t mean that on every occasion, whenever the accused seeks bail, the court should grant it.”
The State, opposing Khalid’s plea for interim bail, had argued that he is “just misusing the leniency of the court,” adding that “this time, the reasons given by (Khalid) are not at all reasonable”.
The refusal of Khalid’s interim bail comes a day after the Supreme Court criticised its own judgement in the bail pleas of the accused in the larger conspiracy case.
In January, a division bench of the SC comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, while granting bail to five accused in the larger conspiracy case, had refused bail to Khalid and student activist Sharjeel Imam. The SC had set a hierarchy by establishing “qualitatively different footing” of those considered “architects” vis-a-vis those considered as “facilitators” under the UAPA.
On Monday, a division bench of the SC comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its disagreement with the January order. It referred to the three-judge decision in K A Najeeb in 2021, which had said that an accused undertrial suffering long incarceration under UAPA with no end in sight to the criminal trial must be enlarged on bail.
Khalid continues to be in jail for nearly six years since his arrest in September 2020.
Share
