SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
A court in New Delhi on Saturday, July 4, rejected the loan applications for student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger-conspiracy case involving the riots in northeast Delhi in February, saying it had” no option but to following” the Supreme Court’s order on January 5 and may either accept the pleas nor give them the relief.
Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Extra Sessions said the trial judge could not even accept bail pleas.
The judge remarked,” This judge has no choice but to pursue the wisdom dated January 5, 2026, as passed by the Supreme Court, whereby the appeals of both the candidates were dismissed. This court may accept the applications and grant bail to the candidates in accordance with the said attempt of the Supreme Court. In truth, the applications are inadmissible and are now rejected.
The judge stated that despite the candidates ‘ claiming that there was a change in circumstances following the major court’s section bench’s decision in the Haji Iftikhar Andrabi event, the controversy over the difference of opinion between that ruling and the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulfisha Fatima versus State has already been sent to a larger chair.
The judge remarked,” The court may consider the current applications on any ground unless the issue is resolved.”
Because it is bound by the Jan. 5 order, the court may study any changes.
The court added that the Supreme Court’s January 5 ruling rejecting the parole pleas of both applicants violated the court’s authority to actually examine whether there are any changes in circumstances.
Since then, there haven’t been any significant changes in the circumstances when pleaded by the candidates, and it is time to re-examine the candidates ‘ bail, the statement said.
The jury, however, made it clear that everything contained in the order should be taken to mean an opinion on the merits of the case.
Imam, Khalid’s attorneys fight back without success.
Trideep Pias, Khalid’s attorney, informed the court that the conditions had changed since the Supreme Court’s ruling on January 5. He also questioned the logic used in the Gulfisha Fatima case and the subsequent Mian Iftikhar Andrabi decision, which reaffirmed the rules in the KA Najeeb situation regarding prolonged prison.
The Supreme Court, according to him, has” major reservations” about the way KA Najeeb was applied in the Gulfisha Fatima situation and that the reasoning presented in that case amounts to a “hollowing out” of the three-judge chair selection in KA Najeeb.
Talib Mustafa, the Imam’s attorney, cited the Delhi High Court’s loan order in Khuram Parvez’s event as well as the zenith court’s time loan requests for co-accused Tasleem and Khalid Saifi.
He claimed that because both applicants had spent more than six years in custody and the protected witnesses were unlikely to be interrogated soon, they should be given regular bail or, alternatively, six months ‘ interim bail.
Public prosecutors objected to a previous SC order that denied bail.
The applications were opposed by special public prosecutors Madhukar Pandey and Anirudha Mishra, who claimed the Supreme Court had already rejected Khalid and Imam’s bail pleas and that the former’s review petition had also been rejected. They claimed that the trial court was bound by those instructions and that it was unable to release them on bail.
Further, it was claimed that since the apex court’s ruling, there hasn’t been a significant change in the circumstances. The top court’s requirements for renewing the bail plea have not yet been met, so the new bail pleas were inadmissible.
Supreme Court’s order from January 5
Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad were granted bail on January 5 from the Supreme Court, who had earlier refused to pay the charges against them.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had then determined that all accused could not be treated equally in light of the “hierarchy of participation” and that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention ) Act ( UAP ).
In allegedly being a part of a larger conspiracy that led to the riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020, Khalid, Imam, and several others were booked in accordance with the anti-terror UAPA and IPC provisions.
53 people were killed and more than 700 were injured when the violence broke out during protests against the proposed National Register of Citizens ( NRC ) and the Citizenship ( Amendment ) Act ( CAA ).
SOURCE : SIASAT
