[Delhi Riots] Attack on Police Personnel by 'Women Protestors In Front', Area Engulfed In Riot is Epitome Of Premeditated Plan: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that the attack on police personnel during the 2020 North East Delhi riots by "women protestors in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot" is the "epitome of a pre-mediated plan" and would prima facie be covered by the definition of 'terrorist act' under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Denying bail to...
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that the attack on police personnel during the 2020 North East Delhi riots by "women protestors in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot" is the "epitome of a pre-mediated plan" and would prima facie be covered by the definition of 'terrorist act' under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Denying bail to student activist Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said if the chargesheet is taken at face value, there appears to have beeen a premeditated conspiracy for causing disruptive chakka-jam and pre-planned protests at different planned sites in Delhi.
The protests were engineered to escalate to "confrontational chakka-jam and incitement to violence and culminate in riots in natural course" on specific dates, said the court.
The court added that the planned protest was "not a typical protest" which is normal in a political culture or democracy but was "far more destructive and injurious geared towards extremely grave consequences."
It further said there was a premeditated plan to block roads to cause inconvenience and disruption of the essential services in Northeast Delhi.
"The attack on police personnel by women protesters in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot is the epitome of such pre- mediated plan and as such the same would prima facie be covered by the definition of 'terrorist act'," the court observed.
The court also noted that the weapons, the manner of attack, the deaths and destruction caused during the 2020 riots indicated that the same were pre-planned.
"Acts which threaten the unity and integrity of India and cause friction in communal harmony and creates terror in any section of the people, by disturbing the social-fabric is also a priori a terrorist act," the court observed.
Section 15 of the UAPA defines a terrorist act whereas section 18 provides for the punishment for conspiracy, for the commission of a terrorist act.
In this backdrop, the bench was of the view that under UAPA, it is not just the intent to threaten unity and integrity but also likelihood of the same which is covered under Section 15, which defines a terrorist act.
The court also said that the provision includes "not just the intent to strike terror but the likelihood to strike terror; not just the use of firearms but the use of any means of whatsoever nature, not just causing but likely to cause not just death but injuries to any person or persons or loss or damage or destruction of property, that constitutes a terrorist act."
It was also observed that under Section 18, not merely conspiracy to commit a terrorist act but an attempt to commit or advocating the commission or advising it or inciting or directing or knowingly facilitating commission of a terrorist act is also punishable.
"In fact, even acts preparatory to commission of terrorist acts are punishable under Section 18 of UAPA. Thus, the objection of the appellant that a case is not made-out under UAPA is based on assessing the degree of sufficiency and credibility of evidence not the absence of its existence but the extent of its applicability; but such objection of the appellant is outside the scope and ambit of section 43D(5) of the UAPA," the court said.
On Khalid's submission that the statements of witnesses are either false, delay or contradictory or concocted, the court said the statements have to be taken at face and their veracity can be tested only at the time of cross-examination.
The court thus dismissed the appeal filed by Khalid challenging the trial court order denying him bail in the case. The bench had reserved its decision on September 9.
Khalid had moved High Court after he was denied bail by the Karkardooma Court on March 24. He was arrested on 13 September, 2020 and has been in custody for 765 days.
In the bail appeal, Khalid's counsel Senior Advocate Trideep Pais started arguments on April 22 and concluded on July 28. The prosecution represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad began arguments on August 1 and concluded on September 07.
The FIR against Khalid invokes stringent provisions including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984.
Khalid, a scholar and researcher, is an accused in the FIR 59 along with the Pinjra Tod members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal; Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.
Others who have been charge-sheeted in the case include former Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan; Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rehman; former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.
Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam were the last to be chargesheeted in the case. Zargar, Kalita, Narwal, Tanha and Jahan have already been granted bail by the courts in the FIR. Kalita, Narwhal and Tanha were granted bail by the division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani last year.
Read Also: In Umar Khalid Bail Order, Delhi High Court Invokes Maximilien Robespierre, Pandit Nehru To Explain 'Revolution'
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Title: Umar Khalid v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 982