Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

UAPA accused Umar Khalid today withdrew his bail application filed before the Supreme Court of India in the connection with the case involving communal clashes that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, after violence between Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 supporters and protesters.

A division bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal accordingly disposed of the petition.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, told the bench today that the bail plea was being withdrawn owing to 'changed circumstances'.

Earlier, on a joint request being made by both the parties, the Supreme Court had adjourned hearing Khalid's plea. There have been earlier occasions where the Supreme Court had adjourned hearing in the instant plea.

In October 2022, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by Umar Khalid challenging the lower court's order dismissing his bail application stating, "This court expresses the inescapable conclusion that allegations against the appellant are prima facie true".

A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar had said, "We don't find any fair merit in the appeal". Additionally, the high court bench had noted, "The cumulative statement of the protected witnesses indicates the presence and active involvement of the appellant (Umar Khalid) in the protests, engineered against the CAA/NRC. Admittedly these protests metamorphosed into violent riots in February 2020, which began by firstly choking public roads, then violently and designedly attacking policemen and random members of the public, whereat firearms, acid bottles, stones, etc. were used, resulting in the admitted and sad loss of 53 precious lives and the destruction of property worth several Crores".

Khalid has been arrested for allegations under several provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He challenged the lower court's order rejecting his bail application on the grounds that there is no evidence linking him to the violence that erupted in Delhi during the riots.

While denying Khalid bail, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court found that Khalid's name is a "recurring mention" from the beginning of the conspiracy till the riots & that there are numerous statements of witnesses (recorded before the magistrate and before the police) highlighting "incriminating material" against the accused Umar Khalid.

Case Title: Umar Khalid vs. State of NCT Delhi