NEW DELHI: All six accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case concluded their arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their bail petitions filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The accused—Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd. Saleem Khan—presented their rejoinders before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria.
The bench is expected to hear the Delhi Police’s response on Wednesday, to be presented by Additional Solicitor General S V Raju.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, argued that although parts of Imam’s speeches may have been “unpalatable,” they did not justify invoking the UAPA, particularly since he was not named in any of the 750 FIRs relating to riot violence or killings. Dave sought bail for Imam, citing his six-year incarceration as an undertrial.
All six accused have denied involvement, while the Delhi Police opposed their pleas and sought dismissal.
The Delhi HC had earlier rejected their bail applications on September 2, prompting them to approach the SC.
Dave also pointed out that Imam had already secured bail in the case registered specifically for his speech, and that only the larger conspiracy case remained pending.
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa-ur-Rehman, denied allegations that Rehman received Rs 18 lakh to manage a protest site, stressing that supporting peaceful protests is not illegal. He noted that Rehman has no criminal antecedents and faces no FIRs in the capital.
For Meeran Haider, Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal argued alibi, stating Haider was not in Delhi on the day of alleged conspiracy meetings due to his mother’s death, and that supporting documents were available.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Shadab Ahmed, highlighted call data records showing Ahmed was not present at the alleged locations and noted the absence of CCTV evidence. Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, for Mohd. Saleem Khan, maintained his client’s innocence, urging the court to grant bail.