Delhi Riots: Order On Umar Khalid's Bail Plea Deferred Again, To Now Be Pronounced On March 23

A Delhi Court on Monday once again deferred passing orders on the bail plea moved by student activist Umar Khalid in connection with a case alleging larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots of 2020, involving charges under Indian Penal Code and UAPA.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat will now pronounce the order on Wednesday, March 23.

The order on Khalid's bail plea was to be originally pronounced on March 14, however, the same was deferred due to filing of written submissions for Khalid over the preceding weekend.

The plea was to be decided today. However, it has been deferred again following filing of written notes by the prosecution this morning.

The order was reserved earlier this month, after hearing Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Umar Khalid and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appearing for the Prosecution.

Arguments so Far: What did Umar Khalid argue?

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais had argued that the entire chargesheet filed by Delhi Police in FIR 59/2020 is a fabrication and that the case against him is based on the video clips run by Republic TV and News 18 showing a truncated version of his speech.

Refuting the prosecution's allegations, Pais argued that news channels Republic TV and News 18 ran truncated version of a speech delivered by Khalid at Amravati, Maharashtra on February 17 last year.

"Delhi police has nothing but Republic TV and CNN-News18 for the case", the lawyer had submitted.

Pais had alleged that News18 omitted a crucial statement made by Khalid regarding need for unity and harmony from the video telecasted by it.

Pais had also argued that the entire charge-sheet reads like a script of Amazon Prime show 'Family Man', having no evidence to support the allegations, adding that the chargesheet makes rhetorical allegations against Khalid, terming him the "veteran of sedition" without any factual basis. The hyperbolic allegations in the chargesheet "reads like a 9 PM new script of one of those shouting news-channels" and are reflective of the "fertile imagination" of the investigating officer, the lawyer had argued.

Pais had also argued that while the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act were secular, it is the chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police which is communal.

Further, reading out the allegation that the creation of Jamia coordination committee was the brain child of Umar Khalid and Nadeem Khan, Pais had called it a fertile imagination of the IO.

He had also submitted that while the prosecution pushed on claiming that chakka jam was equal to terror act, Chakka Jam is not an offence and that it has been used by students and others while participating in various agitations.

He added that the statements of 'cooked up witnesses' showed a pattern of 'false implication' in the chargesheet as well as FIR 59/2020. He argued that one of the witness' statements which was recorded three days prior to Umar Khalid's arrest was done in order to "suit the arrest".

It was argued that the statements recorded by the investigating agency in the matter were nothing but a fabrication, a tenuous material which will not stand the test of law. According to Pais, the said statements of witnesses were grossly inconsistent with each other and that there was no physical evidence to support the same.

"I recently watched a movie called "The Trial of Chicago 7" where witnesses of the State had already planned to be the witnesses of the State," Pais had argued.

He added " Even a 12 year old would know this is fabrication. They (prosecution) should be ashamed. Not even a shred of physical evidence. One doesn't need a cross examination to tell you that this one is a liar."

What did the Prosecution argue?

Opposing Umar Khalid's bail, the prosecution argued that Khalid wanted to create a perception by referring to web series 'Family Man' and movie 'Trial of Chicago 7' and had nothing to argue on merits of the case.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had argued thus:

"…he wants the application to be decided by a reference to a web series. He wants case to be equated as Family Man and Trial of Chicago 7. It's slightly unfortunate. Let us understand why he wants to equate with Family Man or Chicago 7. Because when you have nothing on merits, you want to go and create headlines."

"You create a perception and it is for this reason if we do a google search of the dates of hearings, when law is argued that doesn't get covered. When family man argued then everything gets covered. The idea is to create a perception. You don't want to argue anything on law, but you want to argue on something which is relevant in media."

Prasad had also objected to the argument put forth by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais to say that the Investigation Agency and Investigating Officer was communal.

Referring to sec. 15 of the UAPA Act which defines a terrorist act, Prasad had argued that while 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.

Prasad 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.

He 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.

He 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. He 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.

Prasad had 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.

He had said that while Umar Khalida's public perception was to protect the Constitution and waving the Indian flag, his agenda was different.

Main thrust of Prasad'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, he had said.

He 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, he added that in case evidence is found against any person, criminal action has to follow.

In this backdrop, he 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 against Khalid 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.