Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case: High Court Issues Notice On Meeran Haider's Plea Challenging Trial Court Order Refusing Bail

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice on the appeal filed by Meeran Haider challenging the Trial Court order denying him bail in connection with a case alleging larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots of 2020, involving charges under Indian Penal Code and UAPA.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted four weeks' time to the prosecution for filing status report in the matter.

Further three weeks' time has been granted for filing of the rejoinder. The matter will now be heard on July 21.

Meeran was denied bail by city's Karkardooma Court on April 5. While doing so, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had found that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against Meeran Haider were prima facie true and hence, the embargo created by sec. 43D of UAPA and sec. 437 CrPC applied for grant of bail to him.

Referring to Section 15 of the UAPA Act which defines a terrorist act, the prosecution had argued that the riots were meticulously planned, there was destruction of properties, disruption of essential services, use of petrol bombs, lathis, stones etc., and therefore meeting the criteria which is required under 15(1)(a)(i),(ii) and (iii) of the Act.

The prosecution had added that a total of 53 people died during the riots, 142 people were Injured in first phase of riots and other 608 were injured in the second phase.

The prosecution had argued that the 2020 sit-in protests were carefully planned, picking strategic protest sites closer to 25 mosques. He had submitted that these sites were places with religious significance but were purposely given Secular names to give legitimate appearance to the allegedly communal protests.

Prosecution had referred to a December 20, 2019 meeting which was attended by Umar Khalid with Harsh Mander, members of United Against Hate, Swatantra Nagrik Sangathan, etc. The prosecution had averred that this meeting was key in deciding the areas of protest and strategies to mitigate police clashes by keeping women at the forefront.

It was also argued that the the issue regarding the protests was not CAA or NRC but to embarrass the Government and to take such steps that it gets highlighted in the International media.

Main thrust of prosecution's arguments was that the DPSG group was a highly sensitive group wherein every small message was privately deliberated upon and then passed forward to other members. Every decision taken was conscious and well thought over, prosecution had said.

The prosecution had submitted that while the case of the prosecution is not that every person who surfaces in the conspiracy has to be made an accused and that merely being silent on a group does not make one an accused, however, it was added that in case evidence is found against any person, criminal action has to follow.

In this backdrop, The prosecution had argued that there was a 'conspiracy of silence' in committing the 2020 North East Delhi riots, idea behind which was to completely put the system under paralysis.

The FIR 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, the main charge sheet 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 charge-sheet 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.

Case Title: Meera Haider v. State