![\"2020](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-132453844,imgsize-61156,width-400,height-225,resizemode-75\/the-bench-granted-two-weeks39-time-to-delhi-police-to-file-its-response-and-posted-the-matter-for-further-hearing-on-august-27.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Friday sought the city police’s response on student activist Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in a case registered under the anti-terror UAPA law related to the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 riots.A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued notice on Imam’s appeal challenging the trial court’s July 4 order rejecting his second regular bail plea.The bench granted two weeks’ time to Delhi Police to file its response and posted the matter for further hearing on August 27.Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020, and booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly being one of the “masterminds” behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots<\/a>, which claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 people injured.The violence broke out during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).The trial court rejected Imam’s bail plea, stating that it had “no option but to follow” the Supreme Court’s January 5 order. The court said it could neither entertain the application nor grant him relief in view of the apex court’s directions. The trial court stated that the bail plea was not even maintainable before it. In his appeal in the high court, Imam said the trial court has erred in declining to independently examine his plea for regular bail.The plea stated that despite the passage of nearly six years, the trial proceedings had not moved beyond the stage of arguments on charges before the court.On January 5, the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case, while granting relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria then observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA and held that all accused could not be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation”. (With inputs from PTI)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n