“What public interest are you protecting by keeping her in jail?” Singhvi asks in Delhi riots bail hearing

Today, the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria continued hearing the bail petitions of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and others arrested in the 2020 Delhi riots case.

On the last day, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju argued that the accused hatched a conspiracy to trigger coordinated violence during the anti-CAA protests. He relied on phone data, chats, witness statements and alleged funding links to say the accused blocked essential supplies and acted through an organised network. He said the riots caused 53 deaths and over 500 injuries and that this material satisfied the prima facie bar under Section 43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Singhvi Delay, unequal treatment and absence of concrete acts

Senior Advocate A.M.Singhvi appearing for Fatima pointed out that the sequence of filing supplementary chargesheets in 2022, 2023 and 2024 had stalled the case and the matter remained pending in the pre-charge stage.

Singhvi then argued that the case had moved benches at the Delhi High Court and was later returned to the trial court where arguments on her charges were concluded. He argued that the five-and-a-half-year-long custody defeated the guarantee of a speedy trial and the timelines show that this was a state-created delay.  He pressed parity with Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal. He said their allegations mirror Fatima’s: membership of Pinjra Tod, participation in Auraton Ka Inquilab, presence at meetings in Seelampur and Chand Bagh and involvement in protest sites. He said these activities do not satisfy provisions of UAPA and that Fatima’s role appears even weaker.

He further disputed the allegation that she received funds from Tahir Hussain and said the protected witness surfaced months later without corroboration.

Singhvi also answered the State’s reliance on a “regime change” theory. He said the chargesheet never uses that line of argument and that it appears only in submissions. He said no material shows any overt act by Fatima. He asked, “What public interest are you protecting by keeping her in jail?”

Sibal: Five-year custody and one speech cannot justify continued detention

Appearing for Khalid, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said Khalid has spent five years and three months in custody since 13 September 2020. He said the prosecution attributes two acts to him: a speech in Amravati on 17 February 2020 and addition to a WhatsApp group in which he did not post.

Sibal pointed out that arguments on charge ran for 34 hearings and that the defence sought four adjournments. He said the prosecution kept filing supplementary chargesheets until late 2024 while repeatedly stating that investigation continued. He said charges cannot be framed in this environment.

Sibal turned to the Amravati speech. He played and read the part where Khalid said, “we will not answer violence with violence, we will not answer hate with hate, but we will meet their violence with peace, and we will meet their hatred with love.” He said the speech reflects Gandhian civil disobedience. He pointed to the date and location of the speech and said nothing connects it to the riots that erupted in Delhi, days later.

He referred to location data that places Khalid at Shaheen Bagh only once at 11:31 pm and said the prosecution still alleged a conspiracy meeting there without support. He also addressed the “Bharat tere tukde honge” claim and noted that a 2016 chargesheet itself records that he never made that remark. Sibal added that Khalid does not appear in any of the 750 FIRs arising from the riots and said that if his speech had caused the violence, the State would have named him in at least one. He cited judgements that record fabrication in some riots cases and argued that the passage of three years and the Court’s rulings in related UAPA matters, including Vernon v State of Maharashtra (2023) , create changed circumstances that justify bail.

Dave: “I am not a terrorist. I am a citizen of this country”

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Imam, said he rejects the labels used for him and stated, “I am not a terrorist. I am a citizen of this country.” He said he has no conviction and that presumption of innocence remains intact.

He reminded the Bench that police took him into custody on 28 January 2020 for the speeches now cited against him. Those speeches already form the subject of FIRs in Assam and Manipur. The present FIR came only in March 2020 and concerns riots that broke out while he remained in custody, which, according to him, rules out physical presence and shows the State now builds its case only on speeches.

On the allegation that he “set a platform for violence” on 23 January, Dave pointed out that he was in Bihar that day and that Delhi Police arrested him five days later. The prosecution, he said, must place material beyond those speeches, and “that plus factor is missing.”

He also addressed the 16 January speech. He argued that Imam received default bail in Assam and Manipur and courts had found no incitement to violence. Moreover, none of the 750 FIRs name him. For Dave, this confirms that speeches alone cannot supply the legal element needed to anchor a conspiracy

The Court listed the matter for further arguments tomorrow.