Delhi riots conspiracy case: Gulfisha Fatima moves SC against rejection of bail

Student activist Gulfisha Fatima has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order rejecting her bail plea in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.

Fatima – who was arrested on April 9, 2020 under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) – has challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that also denied bail pleas of co-accused Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi.

The bail plea of another co-accused Tasleem Ahmed was dismissed by another Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.

Two days ago, Imam had moved the top court against denial of bail by the high court. Arrested on January 28, 2020 from Jehanabad in Bihar, Imam has been in jail for more than five-and-a-half-year.

The accused are facing charges of criminal conspiracy, sedition, promoting enmity between various groups, making statements conducing to public mischief under the IPC and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for questioning the sovereignty, unity, or territorial integrity of India and causing disaffection against it.

They were booked under the anti-terror law -- UAPA and certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the "larger conspiracy" behind the February 2020 Delhi riots during the visit of the then US President Donald Trump that claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 injured. The violence had erupted during the protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

In June 2020, accused Safoora Zargar was granted bail on account of her pregnancy while in June 2021, the High Court gave bail to three other accused - Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal on merits.

The Delhi High Court rejected the bail pleas of the remaining accused, saying they did not deserve parity with the co-accused already released on bail.

“It is trite in law that merely because co-accused persons have been granted bail, would not, by itself, entitle the other accused to bail; there are other considerations and factors which weigh in for considering parity,” the high court had said, adding “the ground of parity is not made out in favour of the Appellants.”

The high court had held that the Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms and such actions must be within the bounds of law.

Besides demanding parity with co-accused Kalita and Narwal, the 10 accused had also sought bail on the ground that they have been in jail for over five years and the trial was likely to take more time to conclude.

However, the high court rejected their second argument as well.

“With respect to the argument of delay and prolonged incarceration… the present case involves complex issues, and the trial is progressing at a natural pace. After giving our careful and thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as reasons outlined above, the Appeal does not succeed,” it said.