Delhi HC Grants Interim Bail to Umar Khalid Citing Mother’s Surgery and Family Bereavement

The Delhi High Court has granted student activist Umar Khalid a three-day interim bail in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, allowing him to meet his mother, who is scheduled to undergo surgery, and attend the Chehlum ceremony of his deceased uncle.

The Court held that the circumstances warranted a humanitarian approach and temporarily released Khalid despite the pendency of serious charges against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain directed that Khalid be released on interim bail from June 1 to June 3, observing that an “empathetic view” was justified in the facts of the case.

While granting the relief, the Court imposed strict conditions, including restricting Khalid’s movement to the National Capital Region (NCR), requiring him to stay only at his residential address, and permitting visits solely to the hospital where his mother is scheduled to undergo treatment.

Khalid is among the accused in the larger conspiracy case arising out of the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020.

The riots resulted in the deaths of 53 persons and left several others injured.

The Delhi Police has alleged that Khalid was one of the key conspirators behind the violence and has charged him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the stringent provisions of the UAPA.

The present proceedings arose from Khalid’s plea seeking temporary release to attend family obligations. Before the High Court, Khalid sought interim bail for a period of fifteen days, from May 22 to June 5.

The application was based on two grounds: the Chehlum ceremony of his uncle and the medical condition of his 62-year-old mother, who is scheduled to undergo surgery for a cyst on her back on June 2.

The plea came shortly after a trial court had declined to grant similar relief.

On May 19, the trial court rejected Khalid’s request for interim bail, prompting him to approach the High Court seeking intervention.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the plea and argued that the medical procedure scheduled for Khalid’s mother did not justify a prolonged release from custody.

According to the prosecution, the surgery appeared to be minor in nature and other family members were available to provide care and assistance.

The ASG further submitted that if Khalid’s presence was considered necessary, appropriate arrangements could be made for him to visit under police escort rather than granting him interim bail.

The State therefore urged the Court not to accede to the request for temporary release.

The Division Bench, however, was persuaded that the circumstances merited limited humanitarian relief.

While taking note of the prosecution’s objections, the Court observed that the present application was not one seeking regular bail on merits but was confined to temporary release for family reasons.

The Bench also considered the fact that Khalid’s regular bail challenge had earlier been rejected by the Supreme Court in January.

However, the High Court distinguished the present request from the broader question of entitlement to regular bail and examined it through the lens of humanitarian considerations.

Observing that courts are often called upon to balance personal circumstances with the demands of criminal proceedings, the Bench noted that Khalid’s mother was scheduled to undergo surgery and that the family was simultaneously observing the mourning rituals associated with the death of his uncle.

“Taking an empathetic view,” the Court recorded, it was inclined to grant interim bail for a limited duration to enable Khalid to spend time with his mother during the period surrounding her surgery and to participate in the family ceremony.

At the same time, the Court ensured that the temporary release was accompanied by stringent safeguards. Khalid was directed to remain within the National Capital Region throughout the duration of the interim bail.

The Court further ordered that he reside only at his residential address and refrain from visiting any place other than the hospital connected with his mother’s treatment.

In addition, the Bench directed that Khalid would be permitted to use only one mobile phone number during the period of release, a condition aimed at ensuring effective monitoring and compliance with the bail order.

Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma court rejected the bail plea of Umar Khalid.

By granting only three days of interim bail instead of the fifteen days sought, the High Court sought to balance Khalid’s personal circumstances with the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the nature of the allegations against him.

Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain