2020 Delhi izbruh: Sodišče dovoli Omar Khalid 2 družinski videokonference vsak teden

A Delhi court on Wednesday permitted activist Umar Khalid to resume holding two video calls with his family each week while he remains incarcerated. The decision followed a request by Khalid, who has been detained since 2020 over charges related to the northeast Delhi riots. The Karkardooma Court ruled that the reduction of weekly video meetings from two to one in May 2026 lacked justification. The court noted that Khalid had consistently used the facility without breaching any prison regulations over the preceding six years. This ruling marks a reversal of the previous restrictions imposed by jail authorities. Khalid is among several individuals charged in a broader conspiracy case tied to the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi. The unrest erupted amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence resulted in 53 fatalities and over 700 injuries. Khalid, along with Sharjeel Imam and other activists, faces accusations of participating in a larger plot that allegedly incited the riots. The case is being prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s decision coincides with recent developments in Khalid’s legal proceedings. Days prior, a Delhi court rejected new bail applications submitted by Khalid and Imam. Their petition argued that their extended detention without the commencement of trials violated their constitutional rights to personal liberty. They referenced recent Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that bail should generally be granted even under the UAPA, provided certain conditions are met. However, the court denied their requests, citing that the Supreme Court had previously denied bail to Khalid and Imam on January 5, 2026, while offering relief to five other accused. The apex court had determined that Khalid and Imam occupied a distinct position due to their alleged involvement in a wider conspiracy. It instructed that their bail petitions could only be reconsidered once protected witnesses had been examined or after one year, whichever came first. This directive underscores the gravity of the charges against them and the judicial system’s approach to such high-profile cases. The ongoing litigation reflects the complex interplay between individual rights and national security concerns. While the judiciary continues to navigate these tensions, the recent allowance of regular video calls highlights a temporary easing of restrictions on Khalid’s access to family. Nonetheless, the broader legal battle persists, with Khalid and Imam awaiting further judicial decisions on their bail status and the progression of their trial. As the legal process unfolds, the focus remains on the procedural aspects of the case, including the examination of evidence and the evaluation of witness testimonies. The outcome of these proceedings will likely shape the trajectory of Khalid’s legal journey and set precedents for similar cases under the UAPA. For now, the court’s decision offers a small measure of respite for Khalid, though the path ahead remains uncertain.