'Ab yahi zindagi hai’: What Umar Khalid said after Supreme Court denied bail

Activist Umar Khalid has reacted calmly after the Supreme Court refused to grant him bail in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. His response became public through a social media post shared by his partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri. According to her, Khalid said he was happy for the other accused who were released on bail and accepted that staying in jail is now part of his life.

The Supreme Court order also denied bail to activist Sharjeel Imam. However, the court granted bail to five other accused in the same case. The decision has once again brought attention to the long-running case related to the February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi.

Umar Khalid has been in jail since September 2020. He has been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which is a strict anti-terror law. The case has been ongoing for several years, with the accused seeking bail at different stages.

Khalid’s reaction after bail denial

After the Supreme Court’s decision, Banojyotsna Lahiri shared Khalid’s reaction on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. She said Khalid was relieved that others had finally received bail, even though his own plea was rejected.

In her post, she wrote that Khalid told her, “I am really happy for the others who got bail. So relieved.” When she said she would come for a prison visit the next day, Khalid replied, “Good, good, come. Now this is life.” The phrase “Ab yahi zindagi hai” reflected his acceptance of the situation.

Khalid’s reaction showed no anger or disappointment. Instead, it showed emotional strength and concern for his co-accused. His partner’s post was widely shared and discussed on social media, with supporters expressing sympathy and solidarity.

The Supreme Court bench, which included Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, refused to grant bail to Khalid and Imam. At the same time, the court allowed bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

The court made it clear that Khalid and Imam were in a different position compared to the others. According to the judges, the allegations against them were more serious at this stage of the case.

ALSO READ: US strikes Venezuela, captures Nicolas Maduro, but is it legal under international law?

ALSO READ: Explained: Why China’s contraceptive tax shows the limits of pro-natalist policies

Court’s reasoning and case background

While rejecting the bail pleas, the Supreme Court said there was a prima facie case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the UAPA. This means the court felt there was enough initial evidence to continue holding them in custody for now.

The court said the legal conditions under the UAPA were applicable to both of them. It added that the current stage of the trial did not support granting them bail. However, the court also noted that they could apply for bail again after all prosecution witnesses have been examined.

In its order, the court said that the situation did not justify their release at this point. This observation shows that the door for future bail has not been completely closed, but it depends on the progress of the trial.

Umar Khalid’s father, SQR Ilyas, reacted to the verdict by calling it unfortunate. Speaking to the media, he said he had nothing more to say and that the judgment was now on record. His brief statement reflected the family’s disappointment with the decision.

The case relates to the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, which led to widespread violence. A total of 53 people were killed, and more than 700 people were injured during the clashes. Homes, shops and places of worship were damaged during the violence.

Sharjeel Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, while Umar Khalid was arrested later on September 13, 2020. Both have been accused of being key conspirators behind the riots. The charges include sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA.

The case has drawn national attention because of its legal complexity and long duration. Many accused have spent several years in jail while the trial continues. Supporters of Khalid and Imam argue that prolonged detention without bail raises concerns, while the authorities maintain that the charges are serious and require strict action.

In summary, Umar Khalid has accepted the Supreme Court’s decision with calmness and dignity. While he remains in jail, he has expressed happiness for others who received bail. The court has kept the option open for future bail after the trial progresses further, making the case one that continues to be closely watched.