Delhi High Court cites UAPA bar in riot bail

Court stresses bail denial rooted in Constitutional law, not political considerations.

- ABHINANDAN MISHRA

The Delhi High Court has underlined that its refusal to grant bail to those accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case is rooted in constitutional law and statutory restrictions, not any other external reasons, directly addressing the recurring allegations that the accused have been kept in custody due to political reasons.

In its September 2 judgment in State of NCT of Delhi vs Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and others, that was reserved on July 9, a bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dealt in detail with the argument raised repeatedly by defence lawyers that prolonged incarceration and trial delays entitled the accused to release.

Imam and Khalid have both been in custody since 2020, meaning they have now spent about five years as undertrials while the case proceeds.

Far from brushing aside these arguments, the court devoted dedicated sections of the judgment to address them. "Delay and Long Period of Incarceration" begins at page 14, while "Bar under Section 43D of the UA(P) Act" begins at page 20. This, the bench indicated, showed that the defence contentions were treated as substantial legal issues deserving detailed discussions before the court arrived at the decision to deny bail.

The court noted at the outset that "the grant of bail is not a mechanical exercise, nor can it rest upon a superficial appraisal of prosecution's material or evidence." It emphasized that criminal jurisprudence rests on balancing the liberty of the accused with the prosecution's right to establish its case.