Delhi Court grants bail to Umar Khalid in Delhi riots case

Umar_Khalid_Law Insider
Umar_Khalid_Law Insider

Soni Satti

A Delhi court granted Umar Khalid bail in connection with the Delhi Riots case arising from an FIR filed at Khajuri Khas.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav issued bail and stated,

The investigation in the matter is complete and chargesheet has already been filed. The trial in the matter is likely to take a long time. The applicant has been in judicial custody in the matter since 01.10.2020. The applicant cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter.”

Khalid’s other bail terms include not tampering with evidence or attempting to influence any witness in any manner, as well as maintaining stability and harmony in the locality.

Khalid has already been ordered to appear in court on each hearing day, as well as include his phone number to Station House Officer (SHO), upon his release from custody.

He was released on bail after paying a personal bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety in the same amount. The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav also directed him to install the Aarogya Setu app on his phone.

The current FIR was filed in connection with the violence that erupted on February 24, 2020, near Chand Bagh Pulia on the main Karawal Nagar Road.

In addition to demanding bail based on parity with his co-accused, Khalid said that the investigation agency had wrongly implicated him in the case due to a “political vendetta to silence dissent.”

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the accused persons’ “common object” was to do maximum harm to other community members’ persons and property.

It was added that there was a swift “meeting of minds” in the case because co-accused persons in the case were well-known to Khalid.

The prosecution claimed that the investigation into the crime was already ongoing and that several members of the “riotous mob” have yet to be found and prosecuted.

It was also argued that the “conspiracy angle” behind such a large-scale riot needed to be uncovered.

The court acknowledged that the prosecutors could not prove that Khalid was physically present at the crime scene and also noted that no CCTV or viral video of Khalid was found at the crime scene, and that no independent witness or police witness had identified him.

Related Post