Delhi Riots- Umar Khalid Withdraws Bail Application After Prosecution's Objection To It's Maintainability, Delhi Court To Hear Fresh Plea On Wednesday

In another development in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving charges under UAPA, student activist Umar Khalid has withdrawn his bail application filed under sec. 439 CrPC on Monday after the prosecution's objection on its maintainability.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was apprised by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais appearing for Khalid that they have filed a substituted application seeking bail under sec. 437 CrPC instead of sec. 439 CrPC which was filed earlier.

Accordingly, while issuing notice, Court has sought response of the Prosecution on the fresh bail plea filed under sec. 437 CrPC while posting the matter next on Wednesday, September 8.

The development came days after Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, while objecting to the maintainability of bail plea filed by co accused Ishrat Jahan in the case, submitted that application filed under sec. 437 must have been moved in place of sec. 439 of CrPC primarily because of the reason that the Court hearing the plea is a special court designated under UAPA Act and therefore exercises all powers that are before the Court of Magistrate within the rigours of sec. 437 of CrPC.

"Bail Plea Doesn't Become Maintainable By Invoking Wrong Provisions In Law": Prosecution Opposes Ishrat Jahan's Bail Plea In Riots Case

In furtherance of this, the bail application under sec. 439 CrPC was withdrawn by Umar Khalid. However, another co accused Khalif Saifi had also withdrawn his bail application and filed another application under sec. 437 CrPC following the objection raised by the Prosecution.

During the course of hearing today, while SPP Prasad insisted on filing a short response in the fresh bail application, Advocate Pais submitted that since the merits of the plea are not changed, the Court may continue to hear his submissions without any adjournment.

"I object to what is written in the application. You've written that objection to maintainability is a dilatory tactic. I will have to file a short reply," submitted SPP Amit Prasad.

"First your interim application has to be decided. Then sec. 439 has to go. Then sec. 437 CrPC application can come in," he added.

On this, Pais submitted thus:

"Let me continue arguing. His written response that it's not a dilatory tactic may come on record. I agree that such a submission would have to be made by him. That's okay, let his response come. So that atleast a day is not wasted, let me continue arguing."

However, the Court was of the view that since a fresh application has been filed in the matter, it would be appropriate to issue notice and seek response of the Prosecution before proceeding further with the matter.

"If an application under sec. 439 has to be withdrawn and sec. 437 application has to be taken today, I have to get a reply. Because I haven't issued notice in it," Court said.

"I can record those objections and let you withdraw this application. Under the Act, you have to notify Prosecution. In that case, I can give you a date of two or three days maximum. The law says that prosecution has to be notified. Let a notice be there. Let it be on record. Two of you have withdrawn. Some accused are saying that sec. 439 will apply," the judge added.

Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to Wednesday.

On the earlier ocassion, Khalid had informed the Court that the entire charge-sheet filed by Delhi Police in FIR 59/2020 reads like a script of Amazon Prime show 'Family Man', having no evidence to support the allegations.

Pais had also argued 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 argued.

Umar Khalid had also told the Court that the entire chargesheet 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.

It was submitted 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.

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, activist Khalid Saifi, 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.