
AI-generated summary
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. A January 5 Supreme Court order refused them bail while granting relief to five co-accused. A September 30 Delhi High Court order rejected their bail pleas, citing judicial discipline bound to the January 5 order. The trial has not yet begun nearly seven years after the February 2020 violence.
Activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam approached the Supreme Court on Thursday for bail once again in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case.
They are challenging a September 30 Delhi High Court order that rejected their pleas, Bar and Bench reported. The pleas had not yet been listed for hearing.
The High Court held that judicial discipline bound it to the Supreme Court's January 5 order and that it could not alter the terms set there. In that order, the top court refused bail to the two while granting relief to five co-accused, saying they "stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused," local media reported.
The ruling allowed them to reapply once the protected witnesses had been examined or a year had passed, whichever came first.
Imam says he has spent six years and nine months in jail as an undertrial without the prosecution examining any of its 47 protected witnesses, Live Law reported. He argues the witness condition is therefore unlikely to be met in time.
The pleas also say over 900 witnesses are yet to be examined and that continued imprisonment violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
On May 18, another Supreme Court bench criticized the January order, observing that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" even under the anti-terror law UAPA.
Delhi Police have described the two as "masterminds" of the violence that took place in February 2020. However, nearly seven years later, the trial has not yet begun.
Hello again!
This is Seerat from DW's Studio Delhi. The lights are up and sweets are out as the city gears up for the festive season. But a resurgence of the toxic winter air is truly killing the vibe.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have approached the Supreme Court once again for bail, after having spent over six years in jail even as their trial is yet to begin.
Meanwhile, the top court, in a separate case, has ruled that the 24-hour deadline within which an accused must be produced before a magistrate starts from the moment of "detention" and not "arrest."
For this and more, follow our live blog.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The Supreme Court will list the fresh bail pleas for hearing.
Likely · Within weeks
The trial in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case will begin.
Possible · Within months

Four alleged ringleaders of the banned 'Kingdom of Germany' (KRD) extremist group, including leader Peter Fitzek, face trial in Düsseldorf on charges including criminal organization membership and tax evasion.

The EU's top court ruled that CBD-containing foods cannot receive organic certification without prior EU market authorization, as an organic label could mislead consumers into believing the products were approved for sale. The ruling stems from a French case brought by a hemp industry association challenging INAO's restrictions.

A Finnish court convicted the Russian captain and an Azerbaijani crew member of the cargo ship Fitburg for damaging undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland. The captain received a 3.5-year sentence, while the crew member was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months.

Federal prosecutors dropped all criminal charges against Kseniia Petrova, a Russian scientist at Harvard Medical School, after she spent four months in immigration detention following her arrest at Boston's Logan Airport for carrying frog embryos intended for cancer research.

New Jersey's new e-bike licensing and registration law has caused widespread confusion, administrative hurdles, and severe drops in bike shop sales, leading lawmakers to propose rollbacks.

The Australian government defended its under-16 social media ban in court against a legal challenge by Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, which argue the law infringes constitutional freedom of political communication.