Umar Khalid has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court challenging the top court's order denying him bail in the 2020 Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case..The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar this morning by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who sought an open court court hearing in the matter.The judge did not pass any direction but said he will consider..The petition by Khalid was filed through advocate N Sai Vinod. .The Delhi 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 Khalid and others had hatched a conspiracy to cause multiple riots.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..In January this year, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria had denied Khalid and Sharjeel Imam bail, while granting bail to five other accused - Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan.The Court had reasoned that Khalid and Imam stood on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused.The material on record discloses a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam, the Court further said."This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail," the Court had concluded at the time.However, the Court also said that Khalid and Imam can move for bail again on completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from the present order.As regards the other five, the Court granted them bail subject to strict conditions, after noting that delays in trial can serve as a trigger for judicial scrutiny even in cases involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), like the present one.
