The Delhi Police recently presented arguments in the Delhi High Court against granting bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and other individuals accused in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case. The police asserted that the accused are responsible for the trial delays, countering the bail pleas that likely cited the prolonged legal proceedings.
Police Argue Against Bail
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad represented the Delhi Police. They argued that the right to a speedy trial is not a “free pass” for the accused. Instead, they placed the blame for the delays on the defendants, claiming the prosecution had not intentionally stalled the legal process.
Key Points of the Police Argument
The Delhi Police firmly stated that the prosecution has been diligent in pursuing the case. Their main points included:
- The prosecution did not intentionally cause delays.
- The accused are responsible for any slowdowns in the trial.
- The right to a speedy trial should not be used as a reason for bail when the accused caused the delay.
Essentially, the police are arguing that granting bail based on the length of the trial would be unfair because the delays are attributed to the actions of the accused, not the prosecution’s lack of effort. You might find it interesting to also review similar cases and their outcomes to better understand these legal complexities.
Implications and Next Steps
The court, presided over by Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, will now carefully consider the arguments presented by both sides. The judges will need to weigh the evidence and determine whether the delays in the trial are justifiable and whether the accused should be granted bail. The outcome of this hearing will have significant implications for the accused and the overall legal proceedings related to the 2020 riots.
This case highlights the complexities of balancing individual rights with the need for justice, especially in cases involving civil unrest and serious charges under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court’s decision will likely set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.