'Evidence Against Khalid Saifi Is Dubious, No Provocative Speech Given': Sr. Adv. Rebecca John Tells Delhi High Court In Bail Hearing, Order Reserved

The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved order in the bail plea moved by United Against Hate (UAH) member Khalid Saifi in a case alleging larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John appearing on behalf of Saifi made rebuttal submissions before a special bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar and argued that the evidence against him is dubious, adding that no provocative speeches were made by him.

"To say that the speeches are similar to the speeches made by Sharjeel Imam, it's stretching. I have given not one provocative speech…What are they seeing?", John said.

On the allegation that Saifi was connected to co accused Sharjeel Imam, John submitted that the WhatsApp messages relied upon by the prosecution were not between him and Sharjeel but between him and other individuals.

Regarding the allegation that Saifi had sent a message saying Khureji protest site has the potential of being the next Shaheen Bagh, John said:

"If I (Saifi) want to say Khureji (protest site) has the potential to be next Shaheen Bagh, is that an offence under UAPA? How crazy can we get? I know we live in crazy times but is that an offence under UAPA?"

Previously, John had argued that Saifi has been a victim of police atrocities and custodial violence to which the prosecution had said that he has all the remedies available to agitate the said contention by initiating appropriate legal proceedings.

Addressing the said argument, John submitted:

"I am the sole breadwinner of the family. I have a wife and three minor children. I dedicated two months for this protest and now I'm in custody for the next three years. In the middle you take control of my body and beat me black and blue, is the responsibility on me yo file cases against them? How many cases do they think I've the capacity to file and contest?"

She added: "To conclude, in whichever way you look at it, the evidence against Khalid Saifi is dubious."

John concluded her submissions by arguing that she had made out a prima facie case in favour of Saifi to be entitled to bail in the matter.

Earlier John had submitted that if if it were an ordinary case, most courts would have thrown out the evidence. She also argued that the whole 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."

She also 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.

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.