Delhi HC Judge recuse himself from hearing Umar Khalid's bail plea in UAPA case linked to Delhi Riots 2020

New Delhi: Delhi High Court judge Amit Sharma on Monday recused himself from hearing Umar Khalid's bail application in a UAPA case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy of the Delhi Riots 2020.
The division bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh listed the matter before another bench, subject to the order of the acting chief justice of the Delhi High Court.
The matter has been listed before another bench, where the other matter is listed on July 24.
Former JNU student leader and accused in larger conspiracy of Delhi riots 2020 Umar Khalid has moved to the Delhi High Court seeking bail in an UAPA case. He is one of accused in the larger Conspiracy of Delhi riots case 2020.
Umar Khalid is in custody since September 2020. In this investigation is still going on after filing of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets.
His bail petition was dismissed by the trial court. Now he has moved to the High Court.
On May 28, Delhi's Karkardooma Court had refused to grant a regular bail to Umar Khalid. While rejecting the bail plea, the trial court had referred to the order of the Delhi High Court which said that allegations against the accused prima facie true and he does not deserve bail.
Special judge Sameer Bajpai in his order had said, "High Court analyzed the case against the applicant and finally concluded that allegations against the applicant are prima-facie true and that the embargo created by section 43D(5) of UAPA squarely applies against the applicant and the applicant does not deserve bail."
"It is clear that the High Court has minutely considered the role of the applicant and declined the relief as desired by him," Special judge observed in the order passed on May 28.
The trial had court also said that the High Court did surface analysis and concluded that a prima facie case is made out against the accused.
"According to the Vernon's case as relied upon by ld. counsel for the applicant, while considering bail, no 'deep analysis' of the facts of a case can be done and only 'surface analysis' of the probative value of evidence has to be done and as such the High Court has infact did complete surface analysis of probative value of the evidence while considering the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and after doing so it was concluded that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant," trial court had noted in the order.
The court had said that when the High Court has already dismissed the criminal appeal of the applicant vide order dated 18.10.2022 and thereafter, the applicant approached the Supreme Court and withdrew his petition, the order of this Court as passed on 24.03.2022 has attained finality and now, in no stretch of imagination this court can make analysis of the facts of the case as desired by the applicant and consider the relief as prayed by him.
The trial court has dismissed his two bail applications.
He was arrested in September 2020. Since then he is in custody. He had sought a regular bail under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 for grant of regular bail.