New Delhi, Denying bail to nine persons including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the “larger conspiracy” case of February 2020 riots, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens cannot be allowed.
Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms and such actions must be within the bounds of law, it added.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was dealing with the pleas of Imam, Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed.
The bail plea of another accused Tasleem Ahmed was decided and rejected by a different bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
The order of Justice Chawla’s bench said the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings was protected under Article 19, and couldn’t be blatantly curtailed.
However, the right was stated to be “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable restrictions”.
“If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law-and-order situation in the country,” the order said.
The bench went on, “Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the state machinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech, expression and association.”
Dealing with the ground of delay in trial besides the time already spent behind bars to grant bail to the accused, the bench ruled such a ground was not a “universally applicable” in all cases.
“The discretion to grant or deny bail vests with the constitutional court, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each of the case,” it added.
The bench further noted factors such as the interest and safety of the society at large, aside from the victims and their families, ought to be considered by courts at the time of adjudicating bail applications.
On the alleged roles ascribed to Imam and Khalid by the prosecution, the court ruled the same couldn’t be “lightly brushed aside”.
“Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, and specifically the submission of the Solicitor General and the SPP that the present is not a case of regular protest/riot matter, but rather a premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy to commit unlawful activities threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India, it becomes the arduous task of the court to strike a balance between individual rights and the interests of the nation, as well as the safety and security of the general public at large. Therefore, these appeals do not succeed,” the 133-page order held.
The court also rejected the plea for parity with co-accused persons, namely, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal who were granted bail by a coordinate bench of the high court.
The alleged roles of Imam and Khalid in the conspiracy were stated be “prima facie grave” for they delivered “inflammatory speeches on communal lines” to instigate a mass mobilisation of members of the Muslim community.
“In contrast, though the co-accused persons named above were present in the conspiratorial meetings and were members of the WhatsApp groups, their role was limited when juxtaposed with these appellants. Therefore, in our careful consideration, the plea of parity is not made,” the order pointed out.
The court said the alleged inflammatory and provocative speeches of Imam and Khalid, when considered in totality, prima facie indicated their role in the alleged conspiracy.
On the plea of Athar, Ahmed, Saifi and Mohd Saleem, the court said prima facie they played their “respective active role in the conspiracy” and were involved in the creation of protest sites such as Khureji, Chand Bagh, Karawal Nagar, Kardam Nagar and Nizamuddin, among others.
While deciding the pleas of Rehman and Haider, the bench said the possibility of misuse of the former’s position as the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia president, couldn’t be ruled out at the present stage.
Rehman was alleged to have spent ₹2.33 lakh on riots and protest sites.
The court also rejected Fatima’s plea for parity with the co-accused persons who are on bail and held the reprieve to them, did not entitle others the same relief in the case.
“We may note that in a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the accused persons must be involved in all facets of the criminality,” it said.
Khalid, Imam and the rest of the accused persons were booked under Unlawful Activities Act and provisions of IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the CAA and NRC.
These accused have been in jail since 2020 and they sought bail in the high court after the trial court rejected their bail pleas.
The bail pleas of the accused persons, who have denied all charges of Delhi Police, had been pending in the high court since 2022.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
