Several individuals accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi Riots, including Gulfisha Fatima, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Shifa Ur Rehman, have approached the Delhi High Court on Tuesday seeking bail.
Their petitions are primarily based on grounds of parity with others who have been granted bail and their prolonged time in custody. The bail applications are currently pending.
A division bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, heard partial arguments from the defense counsel representing Gulfisha Fatima, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Shifa Ur Rehman, and others. The defense focused on the prolonged nature of their incarceration and the issue of parity with others in similar cases. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing on December 6, with Sharjeel Imam’s plea set for a hearing on December 12. Delhi Police was represented by ASG S.V. Raju and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad.
Gulfisha Fatima’s Bail Plea
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Gulfisha Fatima, argued that she should be granted bail in light of the parity with Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, both of whom were granted bail under similar circumstances. Sibal pointed out that there was no concrete evidence linking Fatima to the riots. “There is nothing on record regarding the actual involvement in riots,” Sibal stated. He further emphasized that Fatima’s plea for bail was not only based on parity but also due to her 4.5-year incarceration.
Abdul Khalid Saifi’s Defense
Senior advocate Rebecca John, representing Abdul Khalid Saifi, argued that the larger conspiracy case was distinct, with separate cases against individual accused persons. She noted that Saifi had already been discharged in a 2020 riots case, and no challenge had been made against that discharge. John highlighted that Saifi had no violent role in the Khureji protest site, which was not a site of violence. She pointed out that Saifi had not been found in possession of any weapons and that his involvement in the protest was solely as part of the United Against Hate (UAH) group.
John also criticized the delay caused by the police in filing supplementary charge sheets, adding that the investigation was dragging on, with 897 prosecution witnesses in the case. “My right to bail and speedy trial has been infringed,” she stated.
Shifa Ur Rehman’s Defense
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa Ur Rehman, argued that Rehman’s only association with the case was his position as president of the Jamia Millia University Alumni Association. He emphasized that Rehman had no involvement in the alleged meetings or actions linked to the conspiracy. Khurshid further clarified that while Rehman was president of the alumni association, he had no right to participate in any conspiratorial activities.
Khurshid argued, “Shifa had no participation in secret meetings, and no money trail has been found against him.” He noted that the question of whether a larger conspiracy existed was still a matter for trial.
Other Defendants’ Bail Applications
Counsel for Mohd. Saleem Khan pointed out that he had been granted interim bail three times without posing any threat to witnesses. He also addressed allegations against Khan, stating that the accusations related to him were not connected to the larger conspiracy.
Court’s Acknowledgment of Seriousness
While the defense emphasized that many of the allegations were still subject to trial, the court acknowledged the gravity of the charges and the broader conspiracy accusations. The Delhi Police has claimed that the 2020 riots resulted in 53 deaths and left hundreds injured.
The court will continue to hear arguments on the bail applications and consider the merits of each case.
