February 2020 riots: HC reserves order in Umar Khalid’s bail plea

The Delhi high court on Friday reserved its order on the bail plea of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid in connection with the main conspiracy case involving the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi, even as his counsel argued that he neither had any “criminal role” in the violence nor any “conspiratorial connect” with any other accused in the matter

The Delhi high court on Friday reserved its order on the bail plea of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid in connection with the main conspiracy case involving the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi, even as his counsel argued that he neither had any “criminal role” in the violence nor any “conspiratorial connect” with any other accused in the matter.

New Delhi, India- August 13, 2018: Delhi police officials with JNU student Umar Khalid who escaped unhurt after an unidentified man shot at him, outside the Constitution club at Rafi Marg in Central Delhi, India on Monday, August 13, 2018. (Photo by Sonu Mehta/ Hindustan Times) (Sonu Mehta/HT PHOTO)

Khalid had moved the high court challenging a trial court order which denied him bail. A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar had issued notice on his plea in April.

Rebutting the submissions of Delhi Police in opposing Khalid’s bail plea, Khalid’s counsel, senior advocate Trideep Pais, told the court that there was no material to support the case of the prosecution against him, and that he raised issues that several others were discussing in the country, including those concerning the Citizenship (Amendment) Act or CAA.

Maintaining that there was nothing illegal in raising such issues, Pais said Khalid’s speech in Amravati, Maharashtra -- which forms the basis of the allegations against him -- not only had a categorical call for non-violence but also did not lead to violence anywhere.

“The only overt act attributed to me (by the prosecution) is the speech (in Amravati)... that was a public event. That did not lead to violence anywhere… Donald Trump went to Ahmedabad also (and there was no violence there). We have the liberty to travel anywhere to India and make speeches if we want to,” Pais said.

Accusing the prosecution of “making stuff up as it went along”, Pais contended that parts of the Delhi Police charge sheet have no basis, and the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution should be “towards violence in Delhi” and not “raising issues of injustice”.

He added that despite having filed four charge sheets in the case, police claims to be still investigating the case.

Seeking to know whether the opposition to CAA is unlawful, the senior counsel said that the only commonality between his speeches and the statements given by his co-accused, including Sharjeel Imam, is opposition to the CAA.

“My speech has a categorical call for non-violence and I request your lordship to read the speech as a whole and not in the manner in which my learned friend (the prosecutor) wants to dissect it, take one sentence and then place it on his own conjecture. This speech does not show any conspiratorial connection with anybody, any other accused, or any violence whatsoever,” he said.

Contending that the present FIR which pertains to the larger conspiracy behind the riots has no connection with the 750 other FIRs registered by Delhi police, Pais said, “While your lordship is looking at my criticism of the charge sheet, I request your lordship, take an overall view whether this charge sheet with all its little-little pieces put together (shows that) there was a conspiracy with absolutely no link to the actual violence in Delhi or to my role or my role being criminal in any way.”

He asserted that “contradictions” in the case that go to the “root of the matter”, witness statements do not support the allegations against him and there were no incriminating recoveries.

“You say Bangladeshi women were transported to the protest site without actually showing that they are Bangladeshi women. Second, was a group of women travelling in a bus to attend a protest illegal? None of these glass bottles or chilli powder find their way to recovery as stated by the witnesses. The prosecution makes up stuff as it goes along. Many parts of the charge sheet have absolutely no basis,” Pais contended.

Earlier, the prosecution argued that riots happened in two phases -- in 2019 and in February 2020 -- and that misinformation was spread during the riots, apart from blockade of roads, attacks on police personnel and paramilitary forces, violence on non-Muslim areas, etc. It contended that the essence of speeches delivered by various accused was to create a sense of fear in the Muslim population.

Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.