2020 riots: Right to speedy trial not free pass, police tells Delhi HC in bail case

The Delhi Police on Wednesday opposing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others before the Delhi High Court, asserting that there was no attempt on its part to delay the trial court proceedings in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case against them in the 2020 Delhi riots case.

The police also argued that the right to a speedy trial was “not a free pass.”

Prolonged incarceration not sufficient reason to grant bail: Cops

• The prosecution said that the right to a speedy trial is not a free pass. The right of society must prevail over the right of the individual.
• Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma said long incarceration of undertrials alone could not be a ground for bail when facts demonstrated their involvement. He urged the court to consider the “intent” of the accused and the ‘loss of life’ in the 2020 Delhi riots.

A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur heard arguments from Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, who maintained that the delay in proceedings should be attributed to the accused.

“The trial court records do not suggest any attempt on the part of the prosecution to delay the matter, rather the boot is squarely and surely on the other leg,” ASG Sharma contended.

SPP Prasad also pointed out that there were judicial orders to indicate how the trial had been delayed at the behest of the accused persons.

“Arguments on charges are going on. The second accused has concluded submissions. They wanted a delay of two weeks. Despite day-to-day hearings, accused are not coming forward for arguments,” Prasad alleged.

Sharma further argued that cases involving terrorism and the integrity of the state required a different standard of adjudication.

“The right to a speedy trial is not a free pass. The right of society must prevail over the right of the individual,” he said.

The ASG further said that long incarceration of undertrials alone could not be a ground for bail when facts demonstrated their involvement. He urged the court to consider the “intent” of the accused and the “loss of life” in the 2020 Delhi riots.

“This is a case where 53 people lost their lives or were made to lose their lives. Two benches of the high court have clearly held that yes, there is a conspiracy made out and yes, UAPA is attracted,” Sharma stated.

Khalid, Imam, and others were booked under the UAPA and Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions for allegedly being the “masterminds” behind the February 2020 riots, which erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence led to 53 deaths and left over 700 people injured.

Challenging the trial court’s denial of bail, Khalid and the other accused cited their prolonged incarceration and sought parity with co-accused who had already secured bail. Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Khalid Saifi had filed their bail pleas in 2022, which have been heard by different benches over time. Khalid moved the HC again in 2024 after his previous plea was rejected in October 2022.

The high court will continue hearing the matter on February 20.