The Delhi High Court on Tuesday emphasized the need to conclude the prolonged bail hearings of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others accused in the February 2020 riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The case relates to the alleged conspiracy behind the violence that erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).
A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur remarked that the accused had consistently argued there was no substantive evidence against them. The court directed the police to specify the roles attributed to each individual in the alleged conspiracy.
“This has to end. This can’t go on like this… This needs to end now. We can’t give you endless time,” the bench told Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, who sought time to file a note outlining the specific roles of each accused.
Prosecution’s Arguments
SPP Prasad highlighted that the current batch of cases involved appeals against trial court orders denying bail and thus required detailed hearings. He pointed out that two courts had already established a conspiracy in the case. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the police, also sought additional time to present submissions.
ALSO READ: In custody over ‘involvement’ in 2020 Delhi riots case, Umar Khalid gets 7-day bail
The prosecution alleged that inflammatory speeches by the accused, including Sharjeel Imam’s call for a “chakka jam” and his purported advocacy to “cut the chicken neck” to block access to Assam, were central to the conspiracy. Prasad argued that these speeches were aimed at “challenging the sovereignty of the country” and instilling fear by referencing issues such as the CAA-NRC, Babri mosque, triple talaq, and Kashmir.
Allegations of Planned Violence
The police claimed that the February 2020 violence, which resulted in 53 deaths and left several injured, was premeditated. They alleged that the accused organized the protests through WhatsApp groups, used women for stone pelting, and strategically managed protest sites. These actions reportedly led to the registration of 751 FIRs related to the riots.
Prasad dismissed the defense’s argument that the violence was a reaction to BJP leader Kapil Mishra’s pro-CAA speech, stating that the accused were attempting to deflect accountability.
The defense, while challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant bail, highlighted the prolonged incarceration of the accused and argued for parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail. Umar Khalid, who first sought bail in 2022, moved the high court again in 2024 after his plea was dismissed in October 2022.
Next Hearing Scheduled
The Delhi High Court will continue hearing the matter on February 12, with the bench reiterating the need to bring the proceedings to a conclusion. The case remains one of the most closely watched legal battles stemming from the controversial February 2020 riots.
