2020 Delhi Riots: Justice Amit Sharma Recuses from Hearing Umar Khalid’s Bail Plea

Delhi High Court judge Justice Amit Sharma on Monday recused himself from hearing the bail plea of former JNU student Umar Khalid in a UAPA case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the riots in February 2020.

The matter was initially listed for hearing before a division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Sharma. Justice Singh directed, “List before another bench, of which Justice Amit Sharma is not a member, on July 24.”

Umar Khalid, arrested by the Delhi Police in September 2020, is challenging a recent trial court order that denied him bail. Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others have been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly masterminding the February 2020 riots in the national capital, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

On May 28, Delhi’s Karkardooma court rejected Khalid’s bail plea for the second time, noting that its previous order dismissing his first bail application had attained finality.

The court stated, “When the Delhi High Court has already dismissed the criminal appeal of the applicant (Khalid) vide order dated October 18, 2022, and thereafter, the applicant approached the Supreme Court and withdrew his petition, the order of this court as passed on March 24, 2022 (on the first bail plea), has attained finality and now, in no stretch of imagination, this court can make analysis of the facts of the case as desired by the applicant and consider the relief as prayed by him.”

The Delhi High Court, on October 18, 2022, upheld the dismissal of Khalid’s first bail plea, stating that the city police’s allegations against him were prima facie true.

The court noted that the anti-CAA protests “metamorphosed into violent riots,” which “prima facie seemed to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings,” and that the statements of witnesses indicated Khalid’s “active involvement” in the protests.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International