Delhi court allows Umar Khalid’s two weekly video meetings with family

New Delhi, July 15 (SocialNews.XYZ) A Delhi court has allowed jailed student activist Umar Khalid to have two e-mulakats (video meetings) every week with his mother and other family members, observing that he had been availing the facility for the last six years without violating any prison rules.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts passed the order while disposing of an application moved by Khalid, an accused in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

"The applicant has been using two e-mulakats a week for the last six years and has not violated any rule of the Delhi Prisons Rules. The applicant is allowed to have two e-mulakats per week for the purpose of talking to his mother and other family members," the court said.

Khalid had approached the court seeking restoration of two weekly e-mulakats, contending that he had been permitted the facility ever since he was lodged in jail but that it had been curtailed to one e-mulakat a week from May 2026.

Appearing for Khalid, counsel submitted that the restriction had been imposed despite there being no violation of any prison rule on his part. The jail authorities opposed the plea, submitting that under the applicable rules, Khalid was entitled to only one e-mulakat every week and that the earlier practice of permitting two had accordingly been discontinued.

After considering the submissions, the court held that Khalid had been availing two e-mulakats every week for the past six years and had not breached any provision of the Delhi Prison Rules. In view of these circumstances, the court directed that Khalid be permitted two e-mulakats every week to speak with his mother and other family members and ordered that a copy of its order be sent to the Superintendent of the concerned Central Jail.

Earlier this month, the same court had dismissed the regular bail pleas of Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court's earlier order declining them bail and that their fresh applications were not maintainable.

The trial court had observed that it had "no option but to follow" the apex court's ruling, which permitted the accused to renew their prayer for bail only after the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or on the expiry of one year from the Supreme Court's January 5 order, whichever occurred earlier.

The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020.

Khalid and Imam are among several accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. At the same time, it granted bail to five other accused in the case -- Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

More recently, the apex court granted six months' interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Observing that different Benches of the apex court had expressed divergent views on the interpretation of the three-judge Bench ruling in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench.

The Bench also took note of the subsequent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency (NIA), where another coordinate Bench expressed reservations over certain aspects of the ruling that had denied bail to Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution's case, the apex court granted interim bail to Ahmed and Saifi for six months, observing that they had undergone substantial incarceration and that the trial was not likely to conclude in the immediate future.

Source: IANS