Delhi Riots UAPA Case Is Based On Opinion Of 2-3 Men Sitting In Special Cell, Giving Meaning To WhatsApp Messages: Khalid Saifi To High Court

Seeking bail in a case alleging larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, accused Khalid Saifi on Wednesday told Delhi High Court that the whole UAPA case is based on the "opinion of 2 or 3 men sitting in the office of Delhi Police's Special Cell who are giving meaning to WhatsApp messages."

Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John appearing on behalf of Saifi told a special bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar that opinion of the Investigating Officer is not evidence.

"This whole case in FIR 59 (UAPA case) is based on opinion of 2-3 men sitting in Special Cell's office who are giving meaning to [WhatsApp] messages. This is not evidence Opinion of IO is not evidence," John argued.

She further said: "You cannot give a larger meaning than what is there on record. That meaning can only be given by court and not the investigator."

John argued that none of allegations made against Saifi can even prima facie make out a criminal case and therefore he is entitled for grant of bail even under the stringent UAPA.

"I am in custody since February 26, 2020 and in this case from March 2020. The case is still at the stage of documents. I don't know whether this case will ever get over during my lifetime….but can we keep a person in indefinite incarceration waiting for them to prove their case which they might not be able to prove," John said.

On the chargesheet using words like "seeds of hate were planted by United Against Hate", John said:

"What gives them the right to say this?…This is the basis of conspiracy theory…this is not based on evidence but is based on usage or frightening and alarming phrases completely unsupported by evidence. Is the IO giving some kind of speech masquerading as evidence?"

On the charge under section 17 of UAPA which provides for the punishment for raising funds for terrorist act, John said that there is no evidence to show that the money was to be used by Saifi for committing any terrorist act.

"Merely because 3 cheques were withdrawn in February 2020, that too of Rs. 1,50,000, can you assume that the money will be used for terrorist activities when you've not been able to show what terrorist activities I've been involved in? Section 17 charge has to go. The allegation is comptletely unsubstantiated prima facie," John submitted.

John further differentiated Saifi's role from other co accused persons by arguing that while Umar Khalid, who has been denied bail by the court in October, was accused of giving provocative speech, Saifi had not given any speech of such nature.

"There is no provocative speeches on record. The only speeches are which are part of electronic data analysis. There are 4 speeches when not one is remotely provocative," she said.

John further said that there is no connection of Saifi with the protest sites at Chand Bagh and Jafrabad.

"Ishrat Jahan, the co accused in FIR 44/2020, our names are taken together in that FIR and the trial court order (denying Saifi bail in FIR 59/2020) has been granted bail," John said.

She further said: "In some 700 chargesheets filed by prosecution in the riots cases, I have been chargesheeted in 2 cases. One has collapsed since I've been discharged and the other is at the stage of charge."

John concluded her submissions by arguing that Saifi is a "victim of custodial violence" and that the said fact should also be considered while granting him bail.

John last week had argued that if it were an ordinary case, most courts would have thrown out the evidence.

The FIR 59/2020 being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell invokes various charges under different provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 against the accused persons.