Shadows of a Larger Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Denies Bail in 2020 Riots Case

The High Court of Delhi has delivered a significant ruling in the protracted legal battle surrounding the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots. A division bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed a batch of criminal appeals seeking regular bail for key accused persons, including Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Athar Khan, and others. The court held that, prima facie, there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations of a "deep-rooted criminal conspiracy" were true, thereby triggering the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UA(P) Act).

The Conspiracy Narrative: Prosecution’s Four-Phase Theory

The case, rooted in FIR No. 59/2020, outlines a prosecution-led narrative that the riots were not spontaneous, but rather an orchestrated series of events. According to the state, the conspiracy unfolded in four distinct phases: beginning with the formation of WhatsApp groups and student networks, followed by strategic mobilization, escalating into violent preparation with stockpiles of weapons, and culminating in the "implementation" phase—the riots of February 2020. The prosecution alleged that the key conspirators, under the guise of protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), sought to undermine the secular fabric of the nation.

Balancing Liberty and Statutory Bar

The appellants mounted a multifaceted defence, highlighting the constitutional right to protest and personal liberty under Article 21. They argued that the state’s evidence relied on belated and boilerplate statements from protected witnesses and that no direct recovery of incriminating weapons was made from their physical possession. Furthermore, they underscored their prolonged period of incarceration, noting that a fair and speedy trial seemed increasingly elusive given the prosecution's massive witness list and volume of electronic evidence.

However, the Court remained firm. Referencing the landmark Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali case, the bench clarified that at the bail stage, the court is not required to engage in a detailed dissection of evidence or "mini-trial." Instead, it is tasked with a "surface analysis" of the material to record a finding on board probabilities.

Parity and Prolonged Incarceration: Why the Court Refused Relief

The appellants’ plea for parity, based on previous orders granting bail to co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, was rejected. The bench noted that the Supreme Court had explicitly clarified that those earlier grants of bail were restricted and could not be used as blanket precedents. Comparing the specific roles ascribed to the present appellants—including allegations of fund-raising for riots and managing protest sites—the Court found their involvement to be "distinct" and graver when juxtaposed with the co-accused who secured relief.

Regarding the delay in trial, the High Court emphasized that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, it does not serve as an automatic key to bail in cases of stringent special statutes. The bench remarked:

> "The ultimate justification for deprivation of liberty of an undertrial can only be on account of the accused-undertrial being found guilty of the offences for which he is charged... If such a finding is not likely to be arrived at within a reasonable time, some relief(s) becomes necessary. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is required."

Key Observations

• On the Nature of Conspiracy: "The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done."
• On Bail under Special Statutes: "The rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence."
• On Probative Value of Evidence: "The exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this stage—of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail—is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage."

The Finality of the Decision

The High Court has underscored the difficulty of securing bail under the UAPA once a court establishes a prima facie basis for the charges. By dismissing these appeals, the Court has affirmed the trial court’s approach, effectively keeping the proceedings focused on the merits of the conspiracy allegations at the stage of framing charges. For the legal community, this judgment reinforces the high threshold required to pivot from statutory restrictions under the UAPA, even when faced with significant delays in the judicial process.

The legal journey for the accused will now proceed to the formal framing of charges, with the court ensuring that its observations today do not prejudice the final outcome of the merits-based trial.