Supreme Court clarifies Delhi High Court observations on Sharjeel Imam while denying bail to Umar Khalid not to prejudice Imam's bail, trial

The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that any observations made by the Delhi High Court about Delhi Riots accused Sharjeel Imam while denying bail to another accused Umar Khalid, will not prejudice Imam's bail plea or trial in any manner [Sharjeel Imam vs State of NCT of Delhi]..A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka made the clarification on a plea by by Imam to expunge certain remarks made against him by the Delhi High Court in its order denying bail to Khalid."We have noticed in para 68 of the impugned judgment that the Division Bench has clarified that the observations made in that order will not tantamount to an expression of the opinion on the merits of the case. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said observations are in the context of that co-accused’s role albeit observations coming even against the petitioner herein and therefore, we clarify that any observations made in respect of the role of the petitioner in the impugned order would not prejudice the petitioner in any manner whatsoever," the Court said.Further, Justice Kaul remarked that it is a complete waste of time when bail applications are heard for long, like an appeal on merits."Bail applications should be heard for not more than 10 minutes and these all things (observations etc) only happens when bails are argued for so long like final appeals on conviction etc" he said.Khalid's bail plea was heard for over 20 days by the High Court before it delivered the order. .While denying bail to Khalid, the Delhi High Court had referred to Imam as 'arguably the head of the conspiracy'.Imam said that these remarks were made without giving him an opportunity of being heard and without any evidence on record, in clear violation of principles of natural justice.The Special Leave Petition (SLP), filed through advocate-on-record Lzafeer Ahmad BF, said that the observations made by the High Court were beyond its scope in a bail application, and were on the merits of the criminal case in which Imam's bail application is still pending before the same court.This, according to Imam, renders not just the bail application but the criminal trial a fait accompli and, therefore, encroaches upon his fundamental right to free and fair trial guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution.Further, the petition claimed that there was absolutely no evidence on record to justify the observations..Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for Imam. [Read order]