New Delhi: In the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy case’, arguing for bail, Umar Khalid said that others with graver allegations were out on bail and some allegedly involved in similar activities weren’t accused, the Indian Express reported.
Khalid faced charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
In February, he withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court. His lawyer, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, cited a “change in circumstances” and planned to pursue bail in the trial court.
“We will try our luck in the trial court,” Sibal said.
On Thursday (March 21), advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Khalid, revealed the change of circumstances in Delhi’s Karkardooma Court, the newspaper reported.
“The factual basis on which three accused in the case have been granted bail have several overlaps with me,” said Pais.
He also argued that the court could consider if Khalid was entitled to a bail of parity even though he was charged with the stringent UAPA as the law was interpreted differently by a Supreme Court judgment in 2023, the daily said.
“The court must be satisfied with the probative value of evidence at the stage of examining bail,” said Pais, adding that no terrorist act had been attributed to the accused by the prosecution.
Another change of circumstances cited by the advocate was the continued incarceration of the accused.
The newspaper cited Pais as saying that the prosecution cited 15 instances to point out the involvement of the accused – in many of these, there were no witnesses.
Pais said the prosecution also mentioned four WhatsApp groups in the chargesheet to allege a conspiracy – out of these, he said Khalid wasn’t part of two groups. He alleged that many persons in these two groups were not even made an accused.
“In one group, Khalid didn’t even send a single message. In the fourth WhatsApp group which Khalid was a part of, he sent only five messages – three of which were Google Maps locations,” the daily quoted Pais as saying.
Khalid also put up a message on behalf of the police to call off the protest, claimed Pais. He added that the accused never instigated violence through this group.
“The two accused who were in Northeast Delhi during the riots are on bail. They’re in the same group as me… they’re far more involved in the group… a witness also made a direct allegation of rioting against these two,” said Pais.
“Why are just two of the seven persons being made an accused? What makes them stand out?” said Pais, adding that participation in a meeting whose contents were unknown to the prosecution was not illegal.
Pais cited an instance where there was a witness, noting that his statements, when compared with the chargesheet, were incorrect.
He also pointed out that the Delhi high court granted bail to co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha despite the same witness attributing more severe crimes to Tanha.
Additionally, Pais mentioned another instance where the prosecution alleged that three accused had conspired in Shaheen Bagh, but argued that the accused were not visible in any CCTV footage.
Pais also argued that in other instances of meetings with other co-accused, their CDRs didn’t match with Khalid’s. “They’re all at different locations… how did they plan a grand conspiracy?”
“The first time India announced that (then US President Donald) Trump would visit (was) on January 13. The prosecution claims that the accused gathered on January 8 to disrupt his event,” he said, adding that nobody even knew that Trump was coming to India on January 8.
Besides Khalid, the other individuals accused in the case are Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, ex-Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, and Faizal Khan.
While Tanha, Narwal, and Kalita have been released on bail, the remaining 14 accused have been incarcerated for the past four years.
The Wire had earlier reported how judges rapped the Delhi Police for ‘biased’, ‘improper’ investigation into the Delhi riots. In many cases, the courts have rapped the Delhi Police, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, over ‘fabrication of evidence’, ‘shoddy probe’ and ‘a lack of logic’.
