TrendingVideosIndiaWorldSports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhPatialaBathindaAmritsarLudhianaJalandharDelhiShaharnama
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentLifestyle
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Delhi riots: Proceedings can’t continue indefinitely, says HC

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stressed the need to conclude the prolonged bail submissions during the hearing of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots. The...
Advertisement

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stressed the need to conclude the prolonged bail submissions during the hearing of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots.

The Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that the proceedings could not be allowed to continue indefinitely and directed the police to specify the roles of each accused in the alleged conspiracy behind the violence.

Advertisement

“This has to end. This can’t go on like this. We can’t give you endless time,” the Bench told the police counsel, adding, “This needs to end now.”

Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad sought time to file a detailed note delineating the specific roles attributed to each accused. He added that the case involved appeals against trial court orders denying bail, requiring a more thorough examination.

“The present batch of matters does not comprise simple bail pleas. These are appeals against orders that refused relief and therefore require substantial hearing,” Prasad argued.

Advertisement

The accused, including Khalid and Imam, have contended that there is “nothing” against them, citing their prolonged incarceration and seeking parity with co-accused who have been granted bail.

Prasad contended that the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) were not spontaneous.

“Shaheen Bagh was the brainchild of Sharjeel Imam, with resistance from locals,” Prasad told the court, adding that Imam gave “inflammatory speeches” advocating “cutting the chicken neck” to block Assam from the rest of the country, allegedly challenging India’s sovereignty.

The SPP further argued that the accused attempted to “deflect accountability” by blaming BJP leader Kapil Mishra, who allegedly delivered a provocative speech before the riots.

Prasad said, “The accused claim that protests were organic, but the violence that erupted in February 2020 was exactly as they had planned.”

Khalid, Imam, and others have sought bail on the grounds of their extended detention and questioned the evidence against them. While challenging the trial court’s refusal of bail, the defence claimed there was no direct link between their speeches and the riots.

“You have to finish now. This can’t go on endlessly,” Justice Chawla remarked. The Bench scheduled the next hearing for February 3.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement