HC defers Umar Khalid’s bail appeal: ‘Let SC take view on 124A first’

“The 124A is under challenge before the Supreme Court and is coming up on 5th of May. The findings on 124A will have bearing on these cases also. My opinion is that we shall fix it after 5th of May, let the Supreme Court take a view on it,” said Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar at the outset of the hearing.

The division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Bhatnagar has earlier heard arguments on the bail appeal on two dates. On Wednesday, after listening to a speech given by Khalid at Amravati, Maharashtra, in February 2020, which forms part of the chargesheet against him, the court had asked whether it was proper to use the term ‘jumla’ with respect to the Prime Minister and said there has to be “a line” or a “lakshman rekha” when it comes to criticism of the government.

Senior advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, Friday told the court that the case pertaining to 124A before the Supreme Court was not likely to be concluded on May 5. “Also, in so far as 124A is concerned, that is not an issue before your lordships. If it was only 124A, I would have got bail long ago. It is Section 43D(5) [of UAPA] and whether 15,17 and 18 [of UAPA] are applicable at all. That is the difficulty,” argued Pais, while referring to the stringent bail provisions under UAPA.

Pais added that though the matter before the Supreme Court on 124A no doubt is very important and “very seminal” on the question, he has to deal with UAPA provisions more during his arguments. However, Justice Mridul said, “We can have it on the 6th. There is no harm. Anything that may have a bearing, we should await the outcome.”.

The court also said that co-accused Sharjeel Imam’s bail application is also before it now and Khalid’s application will be heard together with it on May 6. When Pais insisted again that the hearing of 124A challenge may not be concluded on May 5, Justice Mridul said that the court will hear the bal appeals together and added, “In fact, we were keen to go back and hear that speech, Amravati, once again because according to you the origins of the chargesheet against you stem from that speech at Amravati.”

Pais submitted that the speech is the only “overt act” that the prosecution can “advert to” and that the “rest is fiction”. Justice Mridul said, “the rest could also be acts of omission.”

The court on Wednesday had sought clarification regarding the use of expressions like ‘inquilabi (revolutionary)’ and ‘krantikari (revolution)’. Khalid had mentioned “inquilabli salam” and “krantikari istiqbal” at the beginning of his speech. On April 22, while hearing Khalid’s application, the court had said that his speech at Amravati was “offensive”, “obnoxious” and hateful.

Meanwhile, the court on Friday issued notice to the police on Imam’s bail application in the same case. Imam has argued that he has been arrested by the police as part of a “targeted campaign” to have multiple FIRs and investigations against him at the same time. When the violence broke out in Northeast Delhi, he was already in custody in two other FIRs and no overt or covert act can possibly be attributed to him, reads the appeal.