Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Supreme Court Hears Bail Pleas Of Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman & Md Saleem

The petitions have been filed against the Delhi High Court's judgment delivered on September 2, dismissing their bail applications. A division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur had pronounced the judgment in FIR 59 of 2020, registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell.

Today's hearing

At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Umar Khalid's lawyer, made a brief submission to say that in 116 riot-related cases which were tried, acquittals happened in 97. He added that in many cases, the trial courts had made observations regarding the fabrication of evidence. Justice Kumar asked how this was relevant to the present bail hearing. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Delhi police, said that it was an irrelevant argument being made to prejudice the mind of the Court. Sibal said that he was only stating a fact which will point towards the nature of the investigation. 

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, for Shifa Ur Rehman, started by drawing a parallel with the 'Trial of the Chicago 7' which took place in the United States against the anti-Vietnam war protesters. He said that his client was the President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (AAJMI). Khurshid argued that there was no allegation of any violence or provocative speech being made by Rehman. There is a statement by a protected witness that a meeting on February 22 was attended by AAJMI office bearers, but there was no specific reference to the petitioner or any statement allegedly made by him. "I may be present but have I said anything or contributed anything? It's very critical at this point," Khurshid said.

Khurshid also highlighted that there is no other case against Rehman, and that on the two occasions he was granted interim bail, he duly surrendered without any violation. He submitted: "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? its very critical, that if somebody is protesting peacefully and is provoked and is then trapped into a horrendous crime. What I am submitting on behalf of Shifa Ur Rehman, who is the head of the AAJMI, his name may appear anywhere but nobody anywhere said he indulged in violence or did something that is patently unlawful."

Khurshid cited that there was an incident in Jamia in December 2019 before the riots took place in February 2020. In this incident, the police marched into the university and ransacked without any permission but even then the petitioner was not involved any act of violence. He also made a reference to the calls to other co-accused persons and clarified that these calls were made when there was unrest in Jamia. 

He also denied any allegation of delaying the trial. Shifa has spent 5 years, 6 months in incarceration.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, for Meeran Haider, also relied on the order granting bail to co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, and claimed parity, saying the allegations were similar. He highlighted that Haider has no criminal antecedents and was aged only 34 years, who was pursuing Ph.D even while in prison. About 960 witnesses and over 1214 documents have been cited by the prosecution and hence the trial will inevitably take time. He pointed out that till September 2024, the Delhi Police kept on filing supplementary chargesheets, and hence, the onus was on them to explain the delay in the trial.

Agarwal also asked if the Court should go into merit scrutiny at this stage when petitioner has suffered long period of incarceration. He questioned if the prosecution can allege delay of trial when it itself continues to file supplementary chargesheet and is yet to conclude investigation. "If I was here in 2019, 2020 or 2021, I could have said, its too premature and let them get sometime but that after 5 and a half years, any length of time for 150 witnesses is a length of time one day too many."

"Last chargesheet is filed as on June 2023 and even in that chargesheet it is said that my investigation is still going on. When it comes to the next progress of trial, which will be the issue of determination whether charges will be framed or not, it presupposes that your investigation is complete. It can't be a scenario where accused persons are called upon to point out their lacunae in case but your investigation is continuing so that it keeps on going. On 17 June, this clarity on the written record by the prosecution was that no doubt I have filed four or five chargesheets, I am still investigating, while I languish in jail from April 2020 to June 2023, please conduct your investigation. During the course of the above, some accused sought clarity from prosecution on whether the investigation qua them was complete or not. It was on 4 September 2024 that the learned trial court noted from the written submission filed by the respondent on 28 August 2024t hat the investigation for all chargesheeted was.....this will be a line in the stand is my submission. 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...Arguments on charges commenced on 5th September and is going on and 12 persons have accused on charge," Agarwal. 

Agarwal also denied that Meeran conspired with Sharjeel Imam. He submitted that this is when Meeran publicly had put a tweet saying that Sharjeel should not be allowed to come to any of the protest sites. He also denied allegations of the counter-affidavit that on December 13, he attended a secret meeting because he was in Bihar attending his mother's last rites. 

Meeran has been granted interim bail once. 

Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, appearing for Mohd. Saleem, submitted that there was no allegation of his client being part of any WhatsApp groups, organisations or making any speeches, let alone inflammatory speeches. He was pointed out that Saleem has been granted bail 6 times. He also stated that although the main allegation against him is that he was the main organiser of the Chandbagh protests, his presence is allegedly established in statements filed some months after arrest. 

Previous developments

On Monday(October 27), Delhi Police requested two weeks to file counter-affidavits. The Court refused to grant the time and asked them to file the affidavit by Friday. The bench also requested Delhi Police's counsel, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, to see if they can come up with something, as the petitioners have spent 5 years in incarceration.

In the counter-affidavit filed yesterday, the Delhi Police submitted that no grounds for bail can be made out on the basis of delay, asserting that the petitioners themselves were responsible for postponing the commencement of the trial for “mala fide and mischievous” reasons.