SC reserves order on bail pleas of Khalid, Imam in 2020 Delhi riots case

The bench asked the Delhi police to reply to the charges levelled by them accusing the prosecution of delayed trial and absence of material to proof their involvement.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment on the bail pleas of former JNU scholar Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, among other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The Delhi police said that the speeches by Khalid and Imam were sufficient for a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

The Delhi police said that the speeches by Khalid and Imam were sufficient for a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The accused had claimed for a bail citing long incarceration and no possibility of trial ending soon.A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria asked the Delhi police to reply to the charges levelled by them accusing the prosecution of delayed trial, absence of material to proof their involvement and relying on old speeches to accuse them of committing a ‘terrorist’ act.

The bench asked the police, “How do you bring section 15 of UAPA which defines terrorist acts into this case.” Referring to arguments made by senior advocate Siddharth Dave who appeared for Sharjeel Imam, the court said, “They have argued that it is only a speech made prior to the riots in 2020. How do you link the speech with the action during the riots? At best, they claim, it may attract unlawful activity under section 13(1)(d).”

Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the police, said that the speech made by Imam talks about the violence that was about to take place in four weeks. He referred to his utterances of cutting off Assam from the rest of the country and holding ‘chakka jam’ by blocking roads and affecting essential supplies.

He referred to section 15 which punishes any act that intends to threaten the integrity and security of the country, including economic security. “His speech led to so many other actions for which he is responsible,” ASG said.

ASG said that Khalid wrongly stated that the slogan ‘Bharat tere tukde tukde honge (India, you will be broken into pieces) during a protest at JNU in 2016 was not attributed to him. “Role of Umar Khalid begins with the antecedent of 2016 wherein he had said the inflammatory line,” Raju said, adding that the FIR has been relied upon in the supplementary charge-sheet filed against Khalid in November 2020.

The court also cleared doubts regarding submissions made by some of the accused who said the police was delaying trial by arresting one accused at a time to allege a chain of conspiracy. The bench also wished to know if it was correct regarding the argument that the accused seeking to bring about a “regime change” was never a part of the charge sheet.

Raju told the court that the evidence clearly showed that the purpose of regime change was evident from the WhatsApp chats by the accused.

While Khalid argued that he was not an admin on these groups and could not post any messages, Raju said that he hid the fact that prior to March 11, 2020, everybody on the group could post, including Khalid and a deliberate attempt was made to delete the conversations and group members were asked to switch to Signal app.

On delay, the police said that regardless of the arrests made in the case, it was willing to proceed with the trial. Raju blamed the accused for the delay as they demanded a physical copy of the entire evidence running into 30,000 pages, a soft copy of which was offered to them.

The law officer also presented SC’s judgments pointing out that once cognisance is taken of criminal conspiracy under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the evidence of one accused will apply against the co-accused. In this case, he pointed out that both Imam and Khalid instigated the accused with their speeches and were physically present during the violence.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, said he had been discharged in the lone FIR related to an incident during the 2020 riots to prove his innocence. However, ASG said that the decision to discharge him was not decided on merits but considering the fact that the larger conspiracy case is already pending against him.

The other accused seeking bail include, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. They had appealed against the September 2 order of the Delhi High Court refusing them bail. While Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, Khalid was arrested later on September 13, 2020.

The police claimed that the riots were instigated close to the arrival of the US President in March 2020 and relied on extensive material including group chats, pamphlet distribution and speeches delivered on communal lines.