Gulfisha Fatima, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and others accused in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case actively pressed for bail in the Delhi High Court. They cited prolonged detention and parity with previously released individuals as key arguments.
Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur reviewed arguments from the defense lawyers of Gulfisha Fatima, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Shifa Ur Rehman, and others. The lawyers focused on their extended custody and sought bail on the grounds of parity. The court scheduled further hearings on December 6 for most pleas, while Sharjeel Imam’s plea will be addressed on December 12.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Gulfisha Fatima, argued for bail based on her extended incarceration and similarity to Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita’s cases. Both were granted bail earlier. “There is nothing on record regarding the actual involvement in riots,” Sibal asserted. He also emphasized that Fatima has spent 4.5 years in custody, making her bail plea urgent.
Rebecca John, appearing for Abdul Khalid Saifi, accused the Delhi Police of causing delays by filing multiple charge sheets. She highlighted that Saifi was discharged in a separate riots case in 2020 without any appeal against that decision.
John pointed out that Saifi allegedly organized the Khureji protest site, which did not witness violence. “Khureji protest site was not the site of violence,” she stated. She also stressed that no weapons were recovered from Saifi and that police had brutally beaten him during custody.
She compared Saifi’s role to others like Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who had already secured bail.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid defended Shifa Ur Rehman, the former president of Jamia Millia University’s Alumni Association. He argued that Rehman’s only involvement was as part of the Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC). He denied claims of Rehman attending meetings or aiding the conspiracy.
“Asif and Devangana are on bail. Asif was a member of JCC. Shifa was a member of JCC. He was added being president of Alumni but had no right to participate,” Khurshid explained. He further clarified that investigators found no evidence linking Rehman to a money trail or supplying SIM cards to others.
Mohd. Saleem Khan’s lawyer argued that his client had received interim bail three times and posed no threat to witnesses. Allegations of tampering with a camera during the protests are part of a separate FIR, the lawyer said.
Defense lawyers accused the police of intentionally delaying trials by repeatedly filing supplementary charge sheets. They claimed the delay infringed on the accused’s right to bail and a speedy trial. “Any accused in custody gains nothing from delaying the trial,” a senior advocate argued.
Delhi Police accused the defendants of orchestrating the 2020 riots, which killed 53 people and injured hundreds. They referenced 897 prosecution witnesses and multiple charge sheets to emphasize the case’s gravity.
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but noted that many claims require trial verification. Further hearings will determine if the accused will receive bail.
