Supreme Court hearing on UAPA bail pleas where Delhi Police claims the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy trial can conclude within two years if accused cooperate.
Case in News
Supreme Court informed that Delhi Riots UAPA Bail Hearing Timeline Update allows trial completion in two years .
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Name
Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi & Connected SLPs
Case Overview
The Supreme Court of India bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria is hearing multiple bail petitions linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi Riots . The accused—Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman and others are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC offences .
On November 21, the Delhi Police, represented by ASG SV Raju, submitted that the trial can be completed within two years if the accused cooperate, asserting that delays are caused by the petitioners themselves .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
- Accused booked under UAPA for an alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots .
- ASG relied on speeches of Sharjeel Imam and prior allegations against Umar Khalid .
- Police alleged organised planning using WhatsApp groups and coordinated protests .
- Petitioners argued prolonged incarceration exceeding five years and delay in trial commencement .
- Dispute: Whether delay and lack of direct violence attribution justify bail under UAPA .
Legal Insights
- UAPA Section 15: Defines terrorism; speeches allegedly disrupting supplies invoked .
- UAPA Section 43D(5) : Severe restriction on bail if accusations appear prima facie true .
- IPC conspiracy provisions & Evidence Act Section 10: Statements of one conspirator admissible against others .
- Principle: Delay alone is insufficient for bail in UAPA cases .
- Police emphasised vicarious liability during the “conspiracy period.”
Court’s Verdict
No final order yet . The Supreme Court continues to hear arguments from both sides . The bench noted the prosecution’s stand that the trial could conclude in two years with cooperation . The petitioners maintain there is no evidence of direct instigation of violence. The matter will continue on Monday .
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice.
Read also-Evidence Act
Source-Supreme Court of India
