Delhi Riots Case: Accused Press for Bail in Supreme Court, Citing Prolonged Detention and Trial Delays

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India is currently seized with a series of critical bail petitions filed by individuals accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots. Before a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, counsel for the accused, including Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Mohd Saleem Khan, have mounted a multi-pronged challenge against their continued incarceration under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), arguing that years of pre-trial detention and systemic delays violate their fundamental rights.

The hearings, which follow the dismissal of their bail applications by the Delhi High Court on September 2, have brought the conflict between individual liberty and the state's security imperatives under sharp judicial scrutiny. The core of the defense arguments revolves around prolonged incarceration, the principle of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail, and a meticulous deconstruction of the prosecution's case to highlight a lack of direct evidence linking them to violence or incitement.

The Prosecution's Delay Under Fire

A central and recurring theme in the arguments presented on November 3 was the significant delay in the trial, which the defense contends is attributable to the prosecution. Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Meeran Haider, delivered a forceful submission questioning the fairness of blaming the accused for trial delays when the prosecution itself continued to file supplementary chargesheets until recently.

Agarwal highlighted that it was not until September 4, 2024, that the prosecution formally declared on record that its investigation against all chargesheeted accused was complete. This declaration came after years of the accused languishing in jail since their arrests in April 2020.

"The question of delay at our instance can't be looked at prior to prosecution taking onus and responsibility that the investigation is over and that date is 4 September 2024," Agarwal argued. He posited that any consideration of trial delay must begin from this date, as arguments on the framing of charges could only commence once the investigation was formally concluded. "It can't be a scenario where accused persons are called upon to point out their lacunae in case but your investigation is continuing," he added, stressing the untenable position this places the accused in.

This argument directly challenges the narrative of a delayed trial being a consequence of defense tactics, instead placing the onus squarely on the investigating agency's protracted process. With over 960 witnesses and 1214 documents cited by the prosecution, the defense argues that the trial is inevitably lengthy, making pre-trial detention of over five years a form of punitive, rather than preventive, custody.

Distinguishing Individual Roles from the Conspiracy Narrative

Counsel for each petitioner has painstakingly worked to distinguish their client's alleged role from the omnibus conspiracy charge. They argue that the prosecution has cast a wide net, failing to establish specific acts of violence, incitement, or direct involvement in any terroristic act as defined under UAPA.

Shifa Ur Rehman: The Right to Protest

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Shifa Ur Rehman, the former President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (AAJMI), invoked the 'Trial of the Chicago 7' to frame the case as one concerning the fundamental right to protest. He asserted that while Rehman's name may appear in witness statements regarding meetings, there is no allegation of him delivering provocative speeches or indulging in violence.

"Essentially, nobody can dispute that if there is a law that you disagree with, you have a right to protest. Peacefully, of course but you have a right to protest. But where is that line to be drawn?" Khurshid questioned. He argued that it is critical to determine if a peaceful protestor was "trapped into a horrendous crime." He emphasized that Rehman has no other cases against him and has duly surrendered on the two occasions he was granted interim bail.

Mohd. Saleem Khan: The Resident, Not the Rioter

Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, for Mohd. Saleem Khan, presented his client as a resident of the riot-affected Chand Bagh area, not an organizer or participant. Khazanchi argued that Khan's case stands on a different footing from others. "I am not a member of any organisation. I am not even a member of any WhatsApp group. There is not even a single speech, let alone any inflammatory speech, qua me," he submitted on behalf of Khan.

Khazanchi pointed out that the primary allegation—that Khan was a main organizer of the Chand Bagh protest—is supported by witness statements recorded months after his arrest. He also noted that while the prosecution relies on CCTV footage, his client is not visible in it. The Delhi High Court itself had observed that the allegation of Khan using a wiper to turn away a camera was insufficient to justify prolonged custody. Khan's record of being released on interim bail six times and surrendering promptly on each occasion was highlighted to demonstrate his compliance with legal processes.

Meeran Haider: Disputing Conspiracy Links

Siddharth Agarwal also focused on dismantling specific conspiracy allegations against Meeran Haider. He refuted the claim that Haider conspired with co-accused Sharjeel Imam by producing a public tweet where Haider had explicitly stated that Imam should not be allowed at protest sites. Further, he countered the allegation of Haider attending a secret meeting on a specific date by submitting that his client was in Bihar for his mother's last rites at the time. Agarwal argued for parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the High Court, stating the allegations were similar.

Broader Questions on the Nature of Investigation

Earlier in the day, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, attempted to introduce a broader critique of the investigation's credibility. He noted that in 116 other riot-related cases, acquittals had occurred in 97, with several trial courts making adverse observations about the fabrication of evidence. While Additional Solicitor General SV Raju objected to the relevance of this submission for a bail hearing, Sibal maintained he was highlighting a factual pattern pertinent to the nature of the investigation in the larger case.

The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing on November 6. The outcome of these bail pleas will be closely watched by the legal community, as it could have significant implications for the interpretation of UAPA's stringent bail provisions, especially in cases marked by extensive pre-trial detention. The Court's decision will weigh heavily on the balance between state security concerns and the sacrosanct right to liberty.