Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case: Prosecution Opposes Former Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan's Bail Plea

The prosecution on Friday opposed the bail plea of the Prosecution on the fresh bail plea filed by Former Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan in Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case, involving charges under UAPA and IPC.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat heard Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad who argued on the aspect of criminal conspiracy and role of accused persons as a part of such a conspiracy. 

FIR 59/2020 registered against Jahan contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 and other offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to Prasad, it was submitted that is the the prosecution's case that there was a premeditated conspiracy to commit North East Delhi riots between the accused. 

In view of this, he submitted that whoever does whatever singular act as a part of criminal conspiracy will be responsible for other's act. 

"It is rarely possible to establish conspiracy through direct evidence. However, it can be established through circumstantial evidence and conduct of accused," Prasad submitted. 

Furthermore, he said:

"What I'm making submission in gist is that what is the law that has been laid down? Assuming there is a conspiracy and no offence takes place, and riots had not taken place, that conspiracy in itself was punishable. Here the case of prosecution is that conspiracy was there and riots took place. Whoever does whatever singular act will be responsible for other's act."

Prasad also relied on the judgment of State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru delivered by the Supreme Court on the aspect of criminal conspiracy. 

Prasad then relied on the chargesheet to argue that a whatsapp group was created called MSJ allegedly formed by Sharjeel Imam. Reading the contents of chargesheet, Prasad said that the chats revealed that Imam was in touch with a "communal and radical group called Students of Jamia."

Referring to the Facebook Page of Students of Jamia, Prasad argued:

"It is clear that the posts are neither secular nor democratic or nationalistic. They are against secularism, democracy and nationalism. It is clearly a situation where these posts are against secularism, democracy and nationalism."

However, due to some technical difficulty the hearing could not continue and was adjourned to tomorrow. 

Jahan had earlier moved an application under Section 439 of CrPC which was withdrawn and a fresh bail plea under Section 437 CrPC has been filed.

The development came after Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad raised an objection to the bail pleas filed by various accused persons saying that the bail application ought to have been filed under Section 437 and not under Section 439, 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 rigors of Section 437 of CrPC.

Earlier, Jahan had claimed that there is no iota of evidence to show her involvement in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case and that the prosecution has falsely implicated her in the matter. It was also submitted that Jahan's case is on a better footing than the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail in the matter.

Others who were charge-sheeted in FIR 59/2020 include Former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.

A supplementary charge-sheet was thereafter filed in the case against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam.