Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Salim Malik, Says Violence Openly Discussed In Meetings Which Is Not Acceptable In Any Democratic Nation

The Delhi High Court yesterday denied bail to Salim Malik alias Munna in the case registered under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alleging a larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there was enough material on record which clearly indicated that Malik was a co-conspirator and committed the offence for which he was chargesheeted.

The bench observed that in the meetings, including Chand Bagh meeting, which were attended by Malik and other co-accused persons in February 2020, the aspects related to riot-like violence and burning of Delhi, were openly discussed which is not acceptable in any democratic Nation.

The court observed that in the meetings, there were also talks of finances, arranging arms, procuring of petrol bombs for killing of people and arsoning of property and destruction of CCTV installed in the area.

It said that even though Malik may not be a part of the WhatsApp group but is quite obvious from the statement of various witnesses that he had attended the meetings and took active part in relation to hatching conspiracy of committing riots.

“At this initial stage of the case when the court has yet to ascertain charges and then to embark on trial, the statements of witnesses examined by the prosecution during the investigation, have to be taken at their face value,” the court said.

It added that the 2020 riots were result of deep-rooted conspiracy, wherein Malik was a co- conspirator.

“The preparators and conspirators of such riots had learnt a lesson from the riots which had earlier taken place in December, 2019 which were having similar characteristics and modus operandi, albeit on a lower scale,” the court said.

The bench further observed that in order to give a secular look, secular or Hindu names were given to protest sites to give secular color.

“In view of the afore-noted factual matrix of the case and statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, we find that the accusation made against the appellant make out a „prima facie true‟ case against him. Consequently, embargo created under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, automatically gets attracted,” the court said.

It added though the citizens of the country have a right to protest but it has to be in a peaceful manner and without resorting to violence. 

“…Therefore, in view of bar provided under Section 45 D (5) of UAPA, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed…,” the court said.

It clarified that the observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The bench said that the trial court, while deciding the charges, shall not be influenced, either way, by any observations.

Malik had filed the appeal challenging the trial court order passed on October 06, 2022, denying him bail in the case.

FIR 59 of 2020 is being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell. The case has been registered under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bilal A. Khan, Ms. Anshu Kapoor & Ms. Sidra Khan, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Amit Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Ninaz Baldawala, Advocates

Title: SALIM MALIK @ MUNNA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 484

Click here to read order