Presiding over the matter, the court swiftly directed Delhi Police to file replies and ordered jail officials to submit a comprehensive health assessment report. This procedural step signals the judiciary’s intent to scrutinize claims amid ongoing trial proceedings.

Hussain’s prior bail bids have been rebuffed, with judges citing the non-bailable nature of UAPA charges including riot conspiracy and unlawful assembly. Evidence against him includes videos from his home showing petrol bombs and stone-pelting during the chaos.

The riots erupted in February 2020 against CAA-NRC protests, escalating into communal violence that killed 53 and wounded over 200. Investigations by Delhi Police and other agencies point to a larger network of conspirators, with Hussain fingered as a central figure fueling the unrest.

Observers note this medical interim plea as a tactical shift after regular bail denials, including a recent January rejection. The court’s response will hinge on verified medical urgency versus flight risk and tampering concerns. Stakeholders await clarity as tensions from the riots linger in public memory.

Shahrukh was granted 15 days of bail by the court in March this year due to his father’s declining health. His lawyer argued that he had been in judicial custody since March 3, 2020, and had never received interim bail. Shahrukh Pathan is accused in two cases related to the riots, including pointing a gun at Head Constable Deepak Dahiya and conspiring to murder a person named Rohit Shukla.

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the main conspirators of the February 2020 riots. The riots resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. The violence erupted during protests against the CAA-NRC.

Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have spent five years in custody. They appealed to the High Court for release, but the petitions were denied. They had previously been denied bail in a lower court. In challenging the lower court’s order, Imam and Khalid cited their prolonged detention and the fact that other co-accused had been granted bail.

In rejecting the petitions on Tuesday, the High Court stated that the right to peaceful protests and public speeches is protected under Article 19(1)(a), but it cannot be misused. The court emphasized that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under the Constitution. Allowing unrestricted protests would harm the constitutional framework and affect law and order.
The court stated that any conspiratorial violence under the guise of protests or demonstrations by citizens is not permissible. Such activities do not fall within the ambit of freedom of expression. The court added that the Constitution gives citizens the right to protest or demonstrate, provided such protests are organized, peaceful, and without weapons.
The judgment noted that citizens have a fundamental right to express concerns against legislative actions, which strengthens the democratic system by indicating the participation of citizens in governance. This right is extremely important as it allows citizens to express dissent, highlight shortcomings in governance, and demand accountability from state officials. However, such actions must be within the bounds of the law.