‘Wasn’t Even In Delhi During 2020 Riots’, Umar Khalid Tells Supreme Court; Bail Pleas to Be Heard On Nov 3

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday heard the bail petitions of former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, activist Sharjeel Imam and others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, before listing the matter for further hearing on November 3.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said the matter will be taken up first on the board on Monday. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Dave appeared for the petitioners.

Opening the arguments, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, said there was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking Khalid to any act of violence during the riots. “There is no recovery of funds, weapons or material connecting me to the events. I was not even in Delhi when the riots took place. There is not a single witness statement that places me at the scene,” he said.

Sibal argued that the only charge against Khalid was one of criminal conspiracy and that the Delhi High Court’s conclusion labelling his February 17, 2020, speech in Amravati as “inflammatory” was incorrect. “That speech is publicly available on YouTube. It was a public address referring to Gandhian principles, not an incitement to violence,” Sibal said. He further contended that Khalid was entitled to bail on grounds of parity as co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha — who were present in Delhi during the riots — had been granted bail in June 2021.

Appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, Singhvi told the court that she had been in jail for over five and a half years, making her the only woman still in custody in the case. He submitted that her bail plea had been listed more than 90 times since 2020 but was repeatedly deferred due to administrative delays. “Justice must be balanced with liberty. My client is not a hardened offender,” Singhvi said, adding that the main allegation against her, creating a WhatsApp group, cannot constitute an offence unless it was proven that there was an intent to incite violence.

Singhvi also pointed out that several others accused on similar charges, including leaders of the Pinjra Tod collective, had already been granted bail. “There is no evidence of anyone carrying chilli powder, acid or any other such material at the sites where Fatima was present,” he added.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, questioned the multiple FIRs registered against Imam, asking the Bench how many cases he was expected to face for the same set of allegations.

The Delhi Police, opposing the bail pleas, maintained that the accused were part of a deliberate conspiracy to incite violence during the then US President Donald Trump’s visit to India in February 2020, with the aim of engineering a “regime change”.

After hearing the submissions, the Bench said the matter would be taken up again on November 3 for further arguments.

ALSO READ: ‘Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam Masterminds Of 2020 Delhi Riots’: Police Affidavit Calls It ‘Regime Change Operation’