---

The court said it would deliver its order before the winter vacation beginning December 19 and asked all parties to file compiled documents by 18 December.

---

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the bail petitions filed by activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and several others accused of involvement in an alleged “larger conspiracy” linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, local media reported.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria concluded hearings on challenges to a 2 September Delhi High Court order that denied bail to Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Muhammad Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman and Shadab Ahmed.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, argued that the actions of one alleged conspirator could be legally attributed to others. “Sharjeel Imam’s speeches can be attributed to Umar Khalid,” Raju said, according to Bar and Bench. “Sharjeel Imam’s case will be considered as evidence against the others.”

The court said it would deliver its order before the winter recess beginning 19 December and asked all parties to file compiled documents by 18 December.

The activists were arrested in 2020 in cases arising from communal violence in North-East Delhi in February that year, in which 53 people were killed and hundreds injured, a mjority of them Muslim. They face charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

After the High Court rejected their bail pleas, the accused approached the Supreme Court, which issued notice to Delhi Police on 22 September. 

In a 30 October affidavit, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that the alleged actions were part of a coordinated “regime change operation” carried out under the guise of civil dissent. 

The affidavit said the petitioners were playing the “victim card” over their long incarceration and claimed the trial had been delayed because the accused acted for “mala fide and mischievous reasons”.

The accused have argued that they were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and that the case amounts to an attempt to criminalise dissent. 

They say their extended detention is effectively punishment before conviction, noting that the trial court has yet to frame charges and that numerous witnesses remain to be examined.

They have also sought parity with co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in June 2021.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Raju said the prosecution could not be blamed for delays. “The accused can’t say wait for further evidence to come and then I’ll argue on charges,” 

The bench observed that Khalid was named in a second chargesheet and noted the defence grievance that investigators had filed chargesheets “one after the other”.

Raju also alleged that Khalid “deliberately planned” to leave Delhi ahead of the riots to “deflect” responsibility, The Indian Express reported. “The planning was done by Umar Khalid,” he said, adding: “They have misstated that he was not admin of Delhi Protest Support Group [DPSG] and only admins could send messages [on WhatsApp].”

The bench questioned why police were relying on an unrelated 2016 FIR linked to alleged slogans at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Raju said a conspiracy could begin long before an alleged incident. “As per protected witness… all instructions came from Umar Khalid,” he said. “…Umar Khalid was actually present on the ground on the first stage of the protest.” He added that call data records appeared to support this.

The judges also asked how speeches related to events on the ground in order to constitute a terrorist act. Raju responded that it was “speech” that “led to action”.