New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday was urged to consider hearing in open court the review petition filed by student activist Umar Khalid in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.
The matter was mentioned by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale.
Sibal submitted that the review petition is listed for hearing on Wednesday and requested that it be taken up in open court. “I wanted to make a mention, my lords are hearing the review petition in Umar Khalid’s case. It is listed on Wednesday, I believe. My request is, it is only for your consideration if you could have it in an open court,” the senior counsel submitted.
Responding to the request, Justice Kumar-led Bench said: “We will look into the paper, and if required, we will call it.”
Ordinarily, review petitions are decided in chambers on limited grounds, such as errors apparent on the face of the record and are rarely listed for open court hearing. In January this year, the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case arising out of the 2020 Delhi riots. However, the apex court granted bail to five other accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — while declining relief to Imam and Khalid.
Pronouncing the verdict, the Justice Kumar-led Bench had held that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against the duo, attracting the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The apex court had observed that the prosecution material and evidence on record did not justify Khalid’s release on bail and indicated his involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and issuance of strategic directions.
Rejecting the contention that no overt act of violence was attributed to Khalid, the top court had said that in conspiracy cases, “the law does not demand that every conspirator execute the terminal act, but demands a prima facie nexus between the accused and the unlawful design to be inferred from cumulative conduct.”
The Supreme Court had clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail and would not influence the trial.
(IANS)
