A Delhi court dismissed the bail plea of former JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) student Umar Khalid on Tuesday, reported news agency PTI. Khalid is accused of being part of the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi communal riots.
Khalid has been booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai rejected the bail plea.
The detailed order is awaited, reported PTI.
Supreme Court judge recuses himself from hearing Umar Khalid`s plea for bail in UAPA case
Supreme Court judge Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a plea filed by former JNU student Umar Khalid seeking bail in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the riots in Delhi in February 2020. Khalid`s petition challenging the Delhi High Court`s rejection of his bail plea came up for hearing before a bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused himself from the case without providing specific reasons.
Justice Bopanna mentioned that the case would be listed before another bench due to Justice Mishra`s inability to hear the matter.
The Delhi Police had filed a counter affidavit in response to Khalid`s petition, but there were objections from the apex court registry regarding certain portions of the statements being in vernacular. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 17 and instructed that the counter affidavit be taken on record.
Umar Khalid, along with other individuals including Sharjeel Imam, has been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” behind the riots in February 2020 during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). Khalid had sought bail, arguing that he had no criminal role in the violence and no conspiratorial connection with the other accused.
The Delhi High Court had rejected Khalid`s bail plea, stating that he was in constant communication with other co-accused and that the allegations against him were prima facie true. The high court had categorized his actions as a “terrorist act” under UAPA. The Supreme Court had sought a response from the Delhi Police regarding Khalid`s plea challenging the high court`s decision.
