Introduction:

In a significant development in the long-running prosecution arising from the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case, a Delhi Court on December 11 granted interim bail to former JNU researcher and activist Umar Khalid, one of the principal accused in the much-debated FIR 59/2020 registered under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The interim bail was sought for the limited and personal purpose of attending the wedding of his sister, and Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts considered the applicant’s request within the narrow scope of humanitarian considerations, noting similar reliefs granted to him in the past in December 2022 and earlier in 2022 for family functions. The case itself has evolved into a legally complex and politically sensitive proceeding involving several accused persons, including research scholars, activists, and political functionaries, each alleged by the prosecution to have been part of a carefully engineered conspiracy purportedly aimed at orchestrating large-scale violence during the anti-CAA protests in Delhi. The court’s order granting interim bail from December 16 to December 29 on the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties of the same amount marks a temporary reprieve for the applicant, albeit within a tightly controlled framework of conditions.

Arguments of the Applicant:

The applicant sought interim bail primarily on personal grounds, emphasizing his right to participate in essential family ceremonies and obligations. His counsel contended that attending his sister’s wedding constituted a legitimate humanitarian circumstance warranting temporary release, especially since similar relief had been granted earlier without any complaint of misuse of liberty. It was argued that interim bail for limited periods does not affect the broader merits of the UAPA prosecution, nor does it dilute the seriousness of allegations. The defense also highlighted the applicant’s consistent compliance with previous interim bail conditions, his clean record of behaviour while in custody, and the absence of any material suggesting any attempt on his part to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The defense emphasized that temporary bail did not interfere with the ongoing adjudication of the applicant’s primary bail pleas before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. His counsel submitted that humanitarian grounds have long been recognized by constitutional courts as legitimate bases for granting short-term bail, particularly where personal liberty intersects with familial obligations.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The prosecution, led by the Special Cell of Delhi Police, opposed the bail on the grounds of the seriousness and gravity of the charges under the UAPA, reiterating that the applicant’s alleged role in the broader conspiracy remains deeply incriminating. The prosecution emphasized that the case involves allegations of orchestrating a coordinated and systematic conspiracy through inflammatory speeches, mobilization of protest groups, and facilitation of communications and logistical support, all of which allegedly contributed to the outbreak of communal violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020. They cited the Delhi High Court’s previous observations describing the applicant’s role as “grave” and “prima facie significant” in instigating communal mobilisation. They argued that release, even temporarily, carries the theoretical risk of unwarranted influence upon witnesses or other accused persons. The prosecution pointed out that the case involves multiple co-accused, including political and student activists such as Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, and others, and that maintaining the sanctity of evidence remained paramount. They insisted that bail under the UAPA framework requires strict scrutiny, given the legislative intent to restrict bail in cases involving alleged terrorist activities or conspiracies that threaten national stability. However, upon the court’s inquiry, the prosecution conceded that the application pertained only to interim bail on personal grounds rather than to adjudication of the merits of regular bail.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing both sides, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai granted interim bail to the applicant, acknowledging the humanitarian grounds presented while simultaneously ensuring that stringent safeguards were put in place to prevent any possibility of interference with the judicial process. The court emphasized that interim bail on personal grounds did not entail any evaluation of the merits or demerits of the allegations under the UAPA. It noted the applicant’s prior compliance with bail conditions and observed that attending a family member’s wedding qualifies as a legitimate personal necessity. Consequently, the court permitted interim bail from December 16 to December 29, subject to strict restrictions. The applicant was directed not to contact any witness or any person related to the case, to provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer, and to keep the phone operational during the entire bail period. He was instructed not to use social media, and his movement was restricted to his residence and the specific venues where the marriage ceremonies were to be conducted. The court also required him to meet only his family members, relatives, and close friends. A personal bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties was mandated. Significantly, the court required the applicant to surrender before the Superintendent of the concerned jail by the evening of December 29. The judge noted that similar interim relief had been granted in previous years and that no violations had been reported. The judgment further clarified that this grant of interim bail had no bearing on the ongoing proceedings before the Delhi High Court or the Supreme Court, where the applicant’s regular bail applications remain sub judice. The order came a day after the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the bail pleas filed by the applicant along with co-accused such as Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima, reflecting the continuing judicial engagement in determining the contours of personal liberty under the UAPA regime. The court’s reasoning implicitly acknowledged the balance between humanitarian considerations and the legislative mandate of the UAPA, reiterating that temporary bail is not inconsistent with the gravity of allegations when appropriate safeguards are implemented.