Opposition slams denial of bail to Umar, Sharjeel; flags Gurmeet Ram Rahim's parole

New Delhi: Opposition leaders on Monday questioned the denial of bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case by the Supreme Court and claimed that 'bail is the rule and jail the exception' dictum apply only to certain individuals, while pointing out to rape convict Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim being repeatedly granted parole.

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha floor leader John Brittas said on 'X', "the principle that 'bail is the rule, jail the exception' clearly does not apply when it comes to certain individuals. No bail to Umar Khalid -- detained for over five years under the draconian UAPA, with the trial yet to even begin. Pre-trial jail is not a punishment."

"Meanwhile, convicted rapist and murderer Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (sentenced in 2017) has just been granted yet another 40-day parole -- his 15th temporary release from prison since conviction. One languishes indefinitely without trial. The other enjoys repeated 'jail vacations' on demand," he added.

"The Supreme Court's denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have spent over five years in jail under the "draconian UAPA without trial or conviction", is against the principles of natural justice, he added.

"Prolonged pre-trial incarceration violates the fundamental principle that bail is the rule, not jail, and undermines the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial. The continued use of UAPA to target dissenting voices reflects a disturbing pattern of repression and selective justice. We reiterate our demand for the release of all political prisoners," it said.

Senior RJD MP Manoj K Jha said it is true that constitutional courts have the power and indeed the duty to grant bail where incarceration becomes unduly long, unjustified, or disproportionate.

"Yet, in the case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel, the prevailing judicial view seems to be that the time already spent in jail is still not long enough, and that the delay in trial is not yet shocking or unconstitutional. This raises troubling questions about how much incarceration must be endured before constitutional protections are activated and achieved," he said.