"Do Not Owe An Explanation To Anyone Including Delhi Police That I Participated In CAA- NRC Protest": Khalid Saifi In Bail Hearing

Seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving charges under UAPA, United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi submitted before a Delhi Court that he does not owe an explanation to anyone about his participation in the protest against Citizenship Amendment Act and NRC.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John appearing for Saifi argued before Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that every individual has a right to protest which in itself is not indicative of a conspiracy.

"I do not owe any explanation to any one in this Country including the Delhi Police that I participated in the protest," John submitted.

Furthermore she added:

"I'm not denying the fact, and I'm saying it with full responsibility that Khalid Saifi did protest against CAA, NRC, and as did I and so many people in this room. That does not make him or any of us culpable."

During the course of hearing on Wednesday, John argued primarily on the allegations levelled against Saifi by the prosecution including the statement of witnesses under sec. 161 and 164 of CrPC.

John began by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali to submit that as compared to other special statutes including MCOCA, TADA etc. where degree of satisfaction is higher, the degree of satisfaction is lower in UAPA.

"My statement is that for the purpose of granting bail, they must cross the threshold of prima facie true," John submitted.

"Today bails in UAPA are granted either on their concession or when the trial is delayed as what happened in the case of Najeeb. It cannot be the intent of the legislation that people are incarcerated and they get to decide when the bail should be granted," she added.

On the point of right to protest, John objected to the allegations levelled against Saifi that he participated in the CAA NRC protests. 

"If I and others like me, feel that CAA NRC is an unjust law. I have every right to protest. That in its own is not indicative of any conspiracy," she said. 

John primarily relied on the statements of three protected witnesses. She began by submitting that statements of two of the witnesses were fabricated as they did not level the same allegations against Saifi in FIR 44/2020, in which he has been granted bail.

"If it's not their story in that FIR, I'm entitled to say that it's a fabrication," she argued.

Coming to the third witness whose statement was incriminating against Saifi, John submitted that the said witness pretended to be a Muslim and that he was snooping in the protest site. 

"He says he knew Ishrat Jahan and Saifi very well and yet he is able to change his name. He grows a beard and pretends to be a Muslim and doesn't get recognized. Look at this! Don't judge out intelligence like that," John submitted at the outset.

"Why isn't this character part of FIR 44. A man who himself starts a statement that he knew all of us and still didn't get recognized, as if we are all stupid and he is the one who is bright," she added.

Objecting to the relevancy of the witness, John said:

"Witnesses like these must be condemned. In a random search of 750 FIRs, we found that in 416 FIRs, members of the Muslim community were either complainants or victims. It's against the secular constitution under which we're protected."

After hearing John, the Court adjourned the hearing to September 9 when she will continue to argue on the aspect of financial transactions alleged against Saifi.

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. The accused are also charged under various offences mentioned under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In September last year, main chargesheet 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, Umar Khalid, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.

Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet 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.