The Delhi Police on Tuesday urged the Delhi High Court to take a “very strict view” on bail applications of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and six others accused in the 2020 riots in the national capital, Bar and Bench reported.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma also told a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur that the riots were a “conspiracy” that was “clinical, pathological” and planned “by forces inimical to India”.

Sharma cited the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act to oppose bail to the persons accused in the case.

The court was hearing the bail petitions filed by activists Khalid, Imam, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima, who have been in jail for over four years.

They were booked for offences under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in connection with the clashes that broke out between February 23 and February 26, 2020, among supporters of the Citizenship Amendment Act and those opposing it in North East Delhi.

The violence had left 53 dead and hundreds injured. Most of those killed were Muslims.

The police have claimed that the violence was part of a larger conspiracy to defame Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and was hatched by those who organised the protests against the amended Citizenship Act.

The eight activists sought bail primarily on the grounds of delay in their trial and also argued for parity with the other co-accused in the case – student activists Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal – who had been granted bail earlier, The Indian Express reported.

On Tuesday, Sharma told the bench that the offences against the six accused persons entailed punishment up to life imprisonment and added that the “question of parity” would not come.

He also stated that the Supreme Court had clarified that the bail granted to Tanha, Narwal and Kalita would not be treated as a precedent.

The High Court had granted bail to the three of them in June 2021.

Subsequently, the police moved the Supreme Court against the bail. However, the top court dismissed the petition.

The top court had clarified that it did not go into the legal position in the matter and added that the verdict of the High Court “shall not be treated as a precedent”.

With regard to Khalid’s case, Sharma told the High Court that the activist had already been denied bail by the courts once. He added that there had been no change of circumstances for filing another petition for relief, Bar and Bench reported.

Khalid approached the High Court after a trial court rejected his bail plea on May 28.

He had approached the trial court after withdrawing his bail plea from the Supreme Court on February 24, arguing that the circumstances of his cases had changed. His bail petition before the top court had been adjourned 14 times.

Khalid had moved the Supreme Court after his bail applications were rejected by the High Court in October 2022. Before that, he was denied bail by the trial court in March 2022.

In August 2023, Supreme Court judge PK Mishra recused himself from hearing Khalid’s plea.

“The law is settled that second bail is justifiable if there is any substantial change in the factual matrix,” Sharma said, according to Live Law. “Lack of change in facts makes this appeal a non starter in law.”

He also referred to an order passed by a trial court last year and warned those accused in the case that the arguments on charge should not be further delayed unnecessarily on their part. He accused them of causing a delay in the trial and added: “The record is speaking for itself.”

The arguments in the matter will continue on Wednesday.

Also read: How bench changes have meant unending bail proceedings in the Delhi riots case