A Delhi Court on Thursday, rejected the bail plea of activist Umar Khalid. This in connection with the Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case, registered under FIR 59. The rejection comes after the court had deferred the order on Khalid’s bail plea thrice.
Khalid, an activist and a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student, was arrested on 14 September 2020 in connection with the case. He has been charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as well as other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat at the Karkardooma district court which has been hearing the bail application for 8 months and had deferred the order thrice in the past. The trial court had recently granted the first bail in the case to former councillor Ishrat Jahan on March 14. The court had also denied bail to two other accused, Gulfisha Fatima and Tasleem Ahmed, on March 16.
Umar’s lawyer, senior advocate Trideep Pais, had argued that the witnesses in this case were false and that the chargesheet was a figment of the investigating officer’s imagination as there was no evidence to show Umar’s involvement.
Pais had also called the chargesheet “rubbish” and said that “no one should be arrested in this case”. “The last person who travelled with someone and got into his mind was Voldemort from Harry Potter. Mere mind mein ghus gaye? (He has entered my mind),” Pais had argued.
Pais had submitted that the witnesses in the UAPA case made false statements and that “a case can’t be made on half-truths”. Pais added that the “witnesses were cherry picked by the police around Umar’s arrest”.
The prosecution, however, had drawn parallels between the planning of the riots to that of the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States of America. Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad had opposed Umar’s bail by saying that Pais may have talked about the web series, “Trial of the Chicago 7”, during his arguments, but “what was more relevant to be referred to was probably the incident of 9/11 which is very well reflected here”.
Prasad had said: “The issue for the accused was not CAA-NRC. The issue was you had to somehow embarrass the government and take steps which will reflect in international media.”
The SPP told the court that all 25 sites where protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act were held in Delhi were picked because of their proximity to mosques, but were “purposefully given secular names”
