The Supreme Court on 5 December denied bail to student activists, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, in their alleged ‘larger conspiracy’ role in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
The court, however, granted bail to five other co-accused in the same case, citing the gravity of the allegations against Khalid and Imam, legal news website Bar and Bench reported.
The apex court said it was necessary to examine each appeal independently, adding that the record discloses that the appellants are not on equal footing when it comes to culpability.
Here is what the Supreme Court said in the order, as reported by Bar and Bench:
-Article 21 occupies a central space in the constitutional scheme. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be assumed to have the character of punishment. The deprivation of liberty will not be arbitrary. The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgment as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in the pre-trial stage.
-Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny
-Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused
-UAPA offenses are rarely confined to isolated acts. The statutory scheme reflects this understanding
-This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail.
-The bail is not a forum for evaluating defenses. Judicial restraint is not an abdication of duty. The correct application requires the court to undertake a structured inquiry. Whether inquiry discloses prima facie offences. Whether the role of the accused has a reasonable nexus to the commission of the offence.
– It becomes necessary to examine each appeal independently.
-On completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from this order these appellants may be at liberty to move an application for grant of bail.
Pre-trial incarceration cannot be assumed to have the character of punishment.
-Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad are allowed. The grant of bail to these accused does not show a dilution of the allegations against them. They shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions (there are about 12 conditions). If conditions are violated, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail after hearing the accused.
-To disregard the distinction between the central roles played by some accused and the facilitatory role played by other accused would itself result in arbitrariness.
