New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned until November 6 the hearing on bail pleas filed by former JNU scholar Umar Khalid and others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA, Bar and Bench reported. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard the matter before directing that arguments continue on Thursday.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, argued that his client had been "singled out" and kept in custody for more than five years despite a lack of direct evidence linking him to any act of violence. Sibal pointed to the 97 acquittals out of 116 riot-related cases and observations by lower courts about fabricated evidence, saying this demonstrated a pattern of unreliable investigation.

He contended that Khalid's continued incarceration violated his right to liberty when the trial had barely progressed.

Also read: ‘Distortion of Criminal Justice System’: SC Hears Bail Arguments By Umar Khalid, Others

Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Shifa-ur-Rehman, said his client had been "cherry-picked" by investigators despite no witness alleging any unlawful act. Rehman, a member of the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia, had already been granted interim bail twice, Khurshid said, arguing that peaceful protest cannot be equated with criminal conspiracy. Invoking the Gandhian principle of non-violent dissent, he told the bench that defying an unjust law peacefully was a citizen’s moral right.

Senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Meeran Haider, said, according to LiveLaw, "...now they say there was 350 witnesses to be examined and seven people have to conclude arguments on charges. After five years, any day for 350 witnesses is a day too many."

Counsel Gautam Khazanchi for Saleem Khan, another of the accused, said, "The first bail order notes that my conduct is not only satisfactory in jail but also in court. Same principles applies on parity."

The advocates for several accused argued in favour of bail considering the passage of years since the cases were filed and the activists and students arrested, without any visible progress in the cases, the Hindu reported.

Opposing the pleas, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, for the Delhi police, argued that the accused had played the "victim card" while delaying proceedings, and that the gravity of the allegations – a planned "regime-change operation" against the State – warranted continued custody. He urged the court not to dilute the standards for bail under the UAPA. The court will tentatively resume hearing the matter on the afternoon of November 6.

Also read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Seven Others' Bail Appeals

From saying that the protests against the CAA had sparked violence, the Delhi police have now come to claim that the riots were orchestrated to ensure a regime change-style operation, and the protest was only a cover for it. It has also indicated that the anti-CAA protest movements were a cover for this "operation".

The case has been marred by controversy from the start, including allegations, reported by newspapers including the Times of India, that several cases were "fabricated" with by police.

In a hearing last week, the police alleged that the protests around the CAA were "carefully chosen" as a "radicalising catalyst" and that the conspiracy was planned to coincide with the official visit of United States President Donald Trump to India in order to "internationalise" the issue.

It used the phrase "regime-change operation" to describe the alleged plan. It has argued that "organised protests" that seek to threaten sovereignty and integrity fall within the ambit of such operations.

The police assert there is “ocular", "documentary" and "technical evidence" pointing to a network or structure behind the events, including chats allegedly referencing Trump and coordination across states according to NDTV.

The term "regime-change operation", though being used by the police in its affidavit, is a legal allegation, not proven in court.

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 in connection with the riots case, and among other charges, for alleged criminal conspiracy and offences under the UAPA. Sharjeel Imam is similarly accused in the "larger conspiracy" case related to the riots – his defence emphasises lack of direct connection, the Hindustan Times has reported.

Both of them and the other accused are before the Supreme Court, challenging the denial of bail by the Delhi high court (and earlier courts).

On Monday, advocates representing various accused also explained the sequence of events related to their clients, saying that they were only arrested because they happened to be residents of the violence-affected areas, or were involved in the protests, but not in any "conspiracy".

Fifty-three people died, hundreds were injured, many FIRs were registered and there were extensive losses to property and business during the violence in Delhi in early 2020, in which the police is pursuing a "larger conspiracy" case involving student activists and residents of the violence-affected areas who were participants or organisers in the anti-CAA protests.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.