The court said that the appeal of the investigating agency, ..

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Monday said it will hear the Delhi Police’s plea challenging the bail granted to former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan in a case concerning a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in the city on July 27.

A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar said the appeal of the investigating agency, which assails the trial court order of March 14, be listed on July 27 along with the bail plea of co-accused Umar Khalid.

“List along with…on the same day, that is, July 27,” the bench said.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had earlier told a single-judge bench, before which the appeal was initially listed, that since the plea concerns offences under the UAPA, it should be heard by a division bench in accordance with the law.
He had further informed the court that the bench headed by Justice Mridul was already hearing Khalid’s bail plea, after which the judge had said, “Subject to orders of the chief justice, proceedings of the present criminal appeal with all its applications be listed for hearing before the division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar on July 11.”

Jahan, along with several others, has been booked under the anti-terror law — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) — for being one of the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

In the appeal, police said the trial court order granting bail to Jahan was perverse, against the law and failed to take into account the gravity of the offence and the evidence which suggested that the violence in northeast Delhi erupted pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by her and the other co-accused.

The appeal said the trial court “lost sight of the fact that several people had lost their lives in these riots”, which “disturbed the even tempo of life” and were “prejudicial to the public order”.

It said “apart from undermining national security, their effect was not confined to a few individuals, but impacted a wide spectrum of public”.

“The trial court lost sight of the fact that the respondent being ‘closely connected’ with the other conspirators, played a very active role in the entire conspiracy of organising the so-called protest at the protest site, which resulted in riots, killing numerous people, besides injuries and destruction of property,” the appeal said.
It further said the “disruptive chakka-jam (road blockade)” done by the accused was a terrorist act and that “general disenchantment was sought to be created, affecting the security of the state”.

Freedom of speech and expression does not encompass the right to incite violence or stage violent protests, the plea said.

“A communally surcharged environment was deliberately created by the conspirators, sharply dividing the religious communities, hardening cleavages and eliminating any possibility of consensus, apart from disavowing all belief in the efficacy and worth of the existing system and portraying the political establishment inimical to a religious community,” it added.

“It is submitted that having roused sentiments and created a sense of insecurity, the likelihood that any act or disorder would have the potential of tumultuous consequences could not only be foreseen, but it is apparent that the conspirators desired these consequences, their conduct being clearly resolved to bring about that result having shaped their behaviour to achieve this end.

“The intent to disrupt the feeling of unity and strike terror is clearly obvious. In any event, the likelihood of this could not but be known,” the plea said.

On March 14, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had said Jahan’s role in the case, on a prima facie consideration, persuaded the court to grant her the relief of bail, in spite of the embargoes contained in the law.
The trial court had stated that according to the chargesheet or the statements of the witnesses, Jahan was neither the one who “created the idea of chakka-jam” nor was she a member of any of the incriminating WhatsApp groups or organisations.
It had said the accused was involved at the protest site at Khureji, which was not located in the area where the riots took place, and was neither physically present in northeast Delhi for rioting nor had her name cropped up in the flurry of calls or the CCTV footage or in any conspiratorial meetings.

Besides Jahan and Khalid, activist Khalid Saifi, JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, Jamia Coordination Committee member Safoora Zargar, former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain and several others have been booked under the stringent UAPA in the case.

This article first appeared in timesofindia.indiatimes.com