Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case: Court Adjourns Hearing In Umar Khalid's Bail Plea To September 23

A Delhi Court on Wednesday adjourned to September 23 hearing in the bail application filed by student-activist Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving charges under IPC and UAPA.

The matter could not be taken up due to pass-over sought by Khalid's counsel Senior Advocate Trideep Pais and unavailability of the Court in the post lunch session. The matter is being heard by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat.

On the previous date, Khalid had withdrawn his bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC after the prosecution's objection on its maintainability. The Court was informed that a substituted application seeking bail under Section 437 CrPC has been filed.

Today, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais for requested the Court to take on record the fresh application under Section 437 of CrPC. He also submitted that the reply on the aforesaid new application has been received from the Prosecution.

This comes days after Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, while objecting to the maintainability of bail plea filed by co-accused Ishrat Jahan in the case, submitted that application filed under Section 437 must have been moved in place of Section 439 of CrPC, primarily because the Court hearing the plea is a special court designated under UAPA Act and therefore exercises all powers that are before the Court of Magistrate within the rigours of Section 437 of CrPC.

In furtherance of this, the bail application under Section 439 CrPC was withdrawn by Umar Khalid. Another co-accused Khalif Saifi had also withdrawn his bail application and filed another application under Section 437 CrPC.

Meanwhile, Jahan's counsel has argued: Justice Can't Be Denied Merely On Minor Technical Issues Of Jurisdiction.

On an earlier occasion, Khalid had informed the Court that the entire charge-sheet filed by Delhi Police in FIR 59/2020 reads like a script of Amazon Prime show 'Family Man', having no evidence to support the allegations.

Pais had also argued that the chargesheet makes rhetorical allegations against Khalid, terming him the "veteran of sedition" without any factual basis. The hyperbolic allegations in the chargesheet "reads like a 9 PM new script of one of those shouting news-channels" and are reflective of the "fertile imagination" of the investigating officer, the lawyer argued.

Umar Khalid had also told the Court that the entire chargesheet is a fabrication and that the case against him is based on the video clips run by Republic TV and News 18 showing a truncated version of his speech.

The FIR against Khalid contains stringent charges 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. He is also charged of various offences mentioned under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In September last year, main chargesheet was filed against Pinjara Tod members and JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.

Others who were charge-sheeted included former Congress Councilor Ishrat Jahan, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, suspended AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.

Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in November against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to the alleged larger conspiracy in the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February.