High Court's decision on bail of Delhi riot accused Umar Khalid reserved

The debate on Khalid's bail began in April and in the very first hearing, judges remarked that they found his speech in Amravati unpleasant and provocative. The court also said that the speech may have been spontaneous in isolation but the bugle call could have been something bigger.

The High Court finally reserved the verdict on the bail of Umar Khalid, accused in the Delhi riots case, after a more than four-month-long hearing. Khalid has challenged the decision of the lower court rejecting his bail application in the High Court. The debate in this matter went on for more than 20 days.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajneesh Bhatnagar reserved its verdict after hearing Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Tridip Paes, senior advocate for Khalid.

The debate on Khalid's bail began in April and in the very first hearing, judges remarked that they found his speech in Amravati unpleasant and provocative. The court also said that the speech may have been spontaneous in isolation but the bugle call could have been something bigger.

He questioned Paes as to what Khalid meant when he used words like Inquilab and Krantikari. Ultimately the hearing went on for more than 20 days, leading the bench to also remark that it appeared that they were hearing an appeal against a conviction and not a bail issue.