The Supreme Court is hearing the bail pleas filed by activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and three others in the larger conspiracy case in relation to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria is hearing the matter.

Khalid and others moved the top court against the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying them bail. The top court had issued notice to the police on September 22.

The riots occurred in February 2020 following clashes over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As per the Delhi Police, the riots caused the death of 53 persons and injured hundreds.

The present case pertains to allegations that the accused had hatched a larger conspiracy to cause multiple riots. The FIR in this case was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA.

Most of the accused were booked in multiple FIRs, leading to multiple bail petitions before different courts. Most have been in custody since 2020.

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, as well as several other offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

He has been in jail since then.

The trial court had first denied him bail in March 2022. He then approached the High Court, which also denied him relief in October 2022, prompting him to file an appeal before the top court.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court sought the response of the Delhi Police in the matter. His plea before the top court was then adjourned 14 times.

On February 14, 2024, he withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court,  citing a change in circumstances.

On May 28, the trial court rejected his second bail petition. An appeal against the same was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on September 2, prompting the present plea before the apex court.

Imam too was booked in multiple FIRs across several States, mostly under sedition and UAPA charges.

In the case registered over speeches he gave at Jamia Milia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University, he was granted bail by the Delhi High Court last year. In the sedition cases registered in Aligarh and Guwahati, he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in 2021 and the Gauhati High Court in 2020, respectively. He was also booked in FIRs in Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur.

The Court had earlier pulled up the Delhi Police for failing to file its response to the bail pleas.

Subsequently, the Delhi Police filed a 389-page affidavit detailing why the accused should not be granted bail.

The Police claimed irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence that pointed to a conspiracy for a "regime-change operation" and plans to incite nationwide riots on communal lines and kill non-Muslims.

Live updates from the hearing feature here.

Hearing Starts.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Khalid): There were 751 FIRs each with the jurisdictional police. I was in one of them. I was discharged. There was another FIR which deals with conspiracy. I am in that. Not in any of the 751 FIRs. The 750 are separate. I am not involved in any of them. I was discharged in December 2022. I am involved in the conspiracy case. Of the 751, 116 cases have been tried and concluded out of which 97 ended up in acquittal. In 17 out of those cases there was fabrication of documents.

Justice Kumar: How are you concerned with that?

Sibal: Just a fact.

ASG SV Raju: Just to create prejudice.

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid (appearing for Shifa ur Rehman): I urge to consider, to recall during the Vietnam war there was the Chicago 7 trial. Essentially nobody is in dispute that if there is a law you disagree with you have a right to protest. Where is the line to be drawn if somebody is protesting peacefully to make that into a large horrendous crime. On behalf of the head of the alumni association of Jamia, no one has anywhere said that he was involved in violence. He has been cherry picked and made an accused. Nothing under the UAPA act is made out in any of the allegations. Even if we accept all allegations to be true. I have done nothing to delay the trial. Please look at the background of the person. He has fought for local body locations. He treats Jamia as his home. When the DPSG was formed he was not a member of that group. He was involved in meetings to support the people taking part in the protest but nobody has said he supported them in a manner which was unlawful.

Khurshid: There was incident in Jamia before the riots happened. The riots happened in February. In December, the police marched into the university. That matter is still pending in the high court. Even then he (Rehman) was not involved in any act of violence.

Khurshid: He has been cherry picked and made an accused. Nothing under the UAPA act is made out in any of the allegations. Even if we accept all allegations to be true. I have done nothing to delay the trial. Please look at the background of the person. He has fought for local body locations. He treats Jamia as his home. When the DPSG was formed he was not a member of that group. He was involved in meetings to support the people taking part in the protest but nobody has said he supported them in a manner which was unlawful.

Khurshid: All this is there in the chargesheet. Petitioner was not allowed to speak in the WhatsApp group. He was included in the Jamia coordination committee. He was not allowed to chair or speak. This comes from the chargesheet itself. When he was arrested there were only two statements against him. The statements were there before he was arrested.

Khurshid: They were all present in the protest movement. There was no evidence that I provoked. None of the witnesses have said that he has done anything illegal.

Khurshid: on the issue of parity, if nothing else, on parity I am entitled to get bail. The three were granted bail by the high court. It was not to be treated as precedent but it could be taken for the purpose of parity. Your lordships had sustained their bail.

Khurshid: There is an argument which is an allegation of him having attended a meeting on the 22nd Feb just around the time when the riots had happened. AAJMI office bearers were present and therefore it’s taken that I was present. I may have been present but whether I have participated or spoken anything is very critical at this point.

Khurshid cites Karim Saddam vs. NIA

Khurshid: Lastly, he’s had the benefit of interim bail on two occasions and he has dutifully surrendered when required to do so. There are no other cases in which he has been accused. If anything had to happen on violence he would have participated when it happened in Jamia. I beseech that in view of the lessons learnt in Chicago 7

Justice Kumar: no this is in India.

Khurshid: we have always been told that the Gandhian method is that if there is an unjust law it is our moral obligation to defy the law.

Khurshid ends his submissions.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal for Meeran Haider: The high court categorised all of us as accused persons under trial on the basis of inter se parities between us. I was placed in the third category with Shifa Ur Rehman. Please see the findings against me.

Agarwal: According to the prosecution 1.6cr was the amount spent. The allegation was I received 80k in my bank account. In cash I got 4.5 lakh according to them out of which I spent 2 lakhs. When we balance the rights of accused with the prosecution we are looking at an allegation saying that somebody paid 2 lakhs out of a 1.6cr arrangement. 3 accused persons were granted bail by DHC in 2021. Same matter. Same conspirator. One of them was Aasif Iqbal Tanha. They were granted bail on merits. This judgement was challenged before this court. At the initial stage it said that this judgement will not be considered as a precedent.

Finally this Court upheld bail. The 3 persons are still on bail. The SLP was dismissed.

Agarwal: There are 3 persons. They were granted bail. That bail was upheld. We raised the issue of parity before the high court. My role was much better, much lighter. I was arrested on 1st April 2020. I have spent 5 years and 7 months. Even in the last chargesheet it is said that the investigation is still going on.

Agarwal: I was released on interim bail, I surrendered on time, I did not tamper with any evidence. Prosecution has not admitted that investigation qua me is over. They filed a chargesheet without my arrest. My presence was not threatening the witnesses or their investigation.

Agarwal: for many of the cases I have either complied the maximum sentence or 50% of the sentence that could be prescribed. It must be demonstrated that I will be given a fair and early trial.

Agarwal: I will point all this out before the Court at the time of charge. Allegation is I was in conspiracy with Sharjeel Imam. I put out a tweet that this person named Sharjeel Imam should not be allowed to any of the protests. He was not present on any of the rioting cites, no CCTV footage. These issues show that accused here are not the one who have no case and should be presumed to be guilty in that context and be kept in custody till the time investigation is over..

Agarwal: The photograph used by the prosecution does not show my presence in the secret meeting at Chandbaag.

SG Mehta: the person clicking the photo is not visible in the photograph.

Agarwal: only Sharjeel imam and Ummar Khalid are accused persons as on day. My name is not even there in the chargesheet under the same allegation it is there in the counter affidavit. Those are my submissions.

Gautam Khazanchi for Mohd. Saleem Khan: I am a permanent resident of Chand bagh. It was one of the areas affected by the riots. I reside there with my children. I was arrested first in 2020. While I was in custody I was arrested in 2022 in the present FIR. As far as the other FIRs are concerned I am on bail. I am not a member of any organisation. I am not even a member of any WhatsApp group. There is not even a single speech let alone any inflammatory speech qua me.

There is no victim that has come forth and said I have acted in violence. My allegation is that I was one of the main organisers of the Chand bagh protest. My presence in the meetings is recorded by witness statements two months after my arrest. Prosecution relies on CCTV footage in which I am not there.

Gautam Khazanchi: He has surrendered on each occasion. The purpose of this indulgence (of interim bail) was granted for the welfare of his children. Enough has been said in delay and parity. The same principles apply to my case. I am also in custody for 5 years.

Khazanchi: the role prescribed to the persons granted bail are much more graver.

Khazanchi concludes his submissions.

Hearing ends. Matter to be tentatively taken up on November 6 at 2pm for further hearing.