Umar Khalid & Khalid Saifi's Discharge In Khajuri Khas FIR Does Not Mean Lack Of Evidence: Delhi Police To High Court In Delhi Riots UAPA Case

The Delhi Police on Thursday told Delhi High Court that the recent discharge of activists Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi in Khajuri Khas FIR does not mean that there is lack of evidence against them in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

The submission was made by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad before a special bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, while opposing Khalid Saifi's bail plea in FIR 59/2020 which was registered under various offences of Indian Penal Code and stringent UAPA.

"Before we go ahead, the first issue is the celebrated order regarding discharge in FIR 101/2020, that was quite a bone of contention to say this is the kind of prosecution they have been made to face. As far as Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid are concerned, the reason for their discharge is not lack of evidence but because they are being prosecuted in this case," SPP Prasad said.

He added: "Discharge in FIR 101/2020 does not take us to a logical end that there is no evidence."

Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid were last week discharged by a Karkardooma Court in a rioting case, observing that the allegations made against them relate to an "Umbrella Conspiracy" rather than conspiracy pertaining to the incident being probed in that case.

As Prasad read the relevant portion from the order discharging Khalid and Saifi, Justice Mridul asked Prasad: "You mean the umbrella conspiracy encompasses the case in which they have been discharged?"

To this, Prasad replied "Exactly."

Prasad opposed an argument put forth by Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Saifi's counsel, that there was no connection between Khalid Saifi and other co accused persons - Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Ishrat Jahan.

Prasad argued that the speeches made by Khalid Saifi were identical to the speeches made by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

"He is an ordinary resident of Khureji, but he gives speeches in Jamia. In all speeches, commonality is there," he added.

"The connection between Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid are that both are members of UAH [United Against Hate], both are members of DPSG, both attended all meetings, both are omnipresent," Prasad added.

Prasad also submitted that Khalid Saifi, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were part of a meeting which happened in Jangpura after which CAB team was formed.

Yesterday, John had argued that there is no connection of Khalid Saifi with the protest sites at Chand Bagh and Jafrabad, where the actual violence erupted. Opposing the said contention, Prasad said: "Merely because Khureji did not erupt in violence does not mean it was not a part of violence [conspiracy]."

Prasad also said that Saifi cannot claim any parity with Ishrat Jahan, who has been granted bail by trial court, as she was not part of any of the Whatsapp groups.

On Khalid Saifi's argument that he has been a victim of police atrocities and custodial violence, Prasad said that Saifi has all the remedies available to agitate the said contention by initiating appropriate legal proceedings. However, he said the same cannot be done after a lapse of more than one year in a bail hearing.

Prasad told court that Khalid had preferred a complaint to the Human Rights Commission which was closed in October last year saying that no further action was required in the matter.

"If they still have a grievance, they have all the remedies available ... which was not to agitate it more than 1.5 years in bail proceedings. Bail has to be granted on the ground whether the trial court passed the order keeping in mind the material on record and in accordance with law," Prasad argued.

He added: "The prosecution case is exactly what is stated in DPSG. It states that the first step is protest, which will be followed by chakka jam and then violence. It's not a figment of imagination of the prosecution."

Prasad also said that John's argument that the ordinary law was capable of handling the case and that UAPA was invoked by the police maliciously, cannot be upheld.

"The invocation of UAPA….the police has to invoke, has it been tested? It has been tested time and again," Prasad said while concluding his arguments.

The matter will now be heard on Monday for rebuttal.