Umar Khalid’s bail plea: Delhi HC judge Amit Sharma recuses from Delhi riots case

Delhi high court judge Amit Sharma, on Monday, recused himself from hearing former JNU scholar Umar Khalid’s plea seeking bail in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, reported Live Law

The court has pushed the hearing for July 24, when it will hear bail pleas by the other co-accused. The matter was heard by a bench comprising of Justices Prathiba M Singh, and Amit Sharma.

Umar Khalid's bail plea in a UAPA case cornering the larger conspiracy behind the riots of 2020, was scheduled for hearing today.

Delhi HC Judge Amit Sharma, has earlier recused himself from hearing the bail pleas of the co-accused persons, that had been pending for a long time, reported Live Law. Justice Sharma has been appearing for various UAPA cases as a lawyer, mentioned the report.

Earlier, Umar Khalid's second bail plea had been denied by the high court on May 28. The JNU scholar had challenged the said order in an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

Umar Khalid had filed a fresh bail plea, after he withdrew his plea seeking relief from the Supreme Court. The former JNU scholar had challenged Delhi High Court's order, denying him bail in October 2022.

Khalid then moved a fresh application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C read with Section 43D (5) of UAPA.

Khalid's first plea seeking regular bail was dismissed by the trial court in March 2022. He has been jailed since September 2020, awaiting his trial under the UAPA for his alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy surrounding the Delhi riots that broke out in 2020.

Umar Khalid has been accused along with other individuals, including Pinjra Tod members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal. Students from Jamia Millia Islamia university, former councillors of Congress, and Aam Aadmi Party, were also involved, reported LiveLaw.

Khalid has been booked under Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, mentioned the report.