New Delhi, May 21: The Karkardooma Court in Delhi has denied interim bail to Umar Khalid, who is currently in judicial custody in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. Khalid had requested a 15-day interim bail to attend the Chehlum of his late uncle and to care for his ill mother. This decision drew a response from former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram.
Chidambaram took to social media platform X to express his discontent, stating that Khalid’s request for bail was denied once again, even for the purpose of assisting his mother during a scheduled medical procedure.
He referenced the principle established by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1977, suggesting that it now exists only in legal texts and is not applied in real cases involving actual defendants. Chidambaram criticized trial courts for seemingly believing that sending defendants to jail based on police statements would allow them to secure bail from higher courts later.
“This is a dereliction of duty,” he stated. If trial courts performed their responsibilities and applied the law correctly, the burden on higher courts would significantly decrease. Consequently, thousands of undertrial prisoners would not languish in jails without charges, trials, or convictions. It is rightly said that “the process itself becomes the punishment.”
Khalid informed the court that he is the eldest son in his family, which includes his father, mother, and five sisters. He argued that his 71-year-old father is unable to care for his mother, and with four of his sisters married and living separately, he is the only one available to assist her before and after surgery.
The plea also noted that Khalid had been granted interim bail multiple times in the past, adhering to all court conditions and surrendering on time.
The defense argued that co-accused Tasleem Ahmed, Shifa Ur Rahman, and Athar Khan had been granted interim bail on similar family health grounds, thus Khalid should also receive similar relief based on equality.
However, the special public prosecutor opposed the bail plea, claiming that the accused was misusing the court’s leniency. The prosecution maintained that the reasons previously deemed sufficient for bail were not applicable this time.
–
My name is Narendra Jijhontiya. I am an experienced content writer with several years of expertise in the field. Currently, I contribute to Daily Kiran, creating engaging and informative content across a variety of categories including TECHNOLOGY, health, travel, education, and automobiles. My goal is to deliver accurate, insightful, and captivating information through my words to help readers stay informed and empowered.
Leave a Comment