Ruthless intensity behind Feb 2020 riots: Delhi Police opposes bail pleas

Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots

Delhi police on Tuesday argued in the Delhi High Court that February 2020 riots were a result of "clinical and pathological conspiracy" executed with a "diabolical intention and ruthless intensity".

Opposing the pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others seeking bail in the case under UAPA, Delhi Police informed a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur the "chaos and mayhem on the road" led to the deaths of 53 people, including a policeman, besides devastation of commercial and residential properties.

The police said in a case of "grave" offences, the principle of "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" will not apply.

 

"This is the gamut and spread of violence. We have 929 commercial establishments broken and 566 residential units broken. Relief disbursed to the injured is more than Rs 20 crore. With this kind of violence, the case of the prosecution is (that) it is a case of clinical, pathological conspiracy, planned and executed with diabolical intention and ruthless intensity," argued additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma.

Khalid, Imam and others were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the IPC for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

The violence erupted during the protests against the CAA and NRC.

While challenging the trial court orders refusing bail, Khalid and others cited their long incarceration and parity with other co-accused who were granted bail.

ASG Sharma on Tuesday argued when the trial court had already gone through the "maze of evidence" and examined the accusation to deny relief to the accused, the high court ought not disturb the case's prima facie foundation.

The UAPA, he said, imposed a strict restriction on grant of bail to accused and the delay in trial was attributable to the accused persons and not the prosecution.

Sharma cited trial court orders to show despite the judge fixing the matter on a day-to-day basis in September, 2024 on framing of charges, none of the counsel came forward to start arguments.

"If you are in such desperate hurry, you will not wait," ASG Sharma said, " and Article 21 of the Constitution -- which gives the accused persons the right to speedy trial -- was not to be seen in isolation."  On the issue of parity with co-accused on bail, he said an "irregularity" couldn't be permitted to be multiplied when the Supreme Court had clarified the high court's 2021 decision was not to be taken as a precedent.

Most bail pleas, including the ones by Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Khalid Saifi, were filed in 2022, and heard by different benches from time to time.

Khalid moved the high court in 2024 seeking bail for the second time, after his plea was dismissed by the high court in October, 2022.

ASG Sharma said there was no change in the circumstances, warranting a relief to Khalid.

The high court will continue hearing the matter on January 8.