By Nupur Thapliyal / Live Law
A Delhi Court on Friday denied bail to United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi in
connection with in connection with a case alleging larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots
of 2020, involving charges under Indian Penal Code and UAPA.
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat pronounced the order after hearing Senior
Advocate Rebecca John and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad.
What did Khalid Saifi Argue?
Seeking bail in the matter, John had submitted that Khalid Saifi did not owe an
explanation to anyone about his participation in the protest against Citizenship
Amendment Act and NRC.
John added that every individual has a right to protest which in itself is not indicative of a
conspiracy. She had argued primarily on the allegations levelled against Saifi by the
prosecution including the statement of witnesses under sec. 161 and 164 of CrPC.
John had placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in NIA v.
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali to submit that as compared to other special statutes
including MCOCA, TADA etc. where degree of satisfaction is higher, the degree of
satisfaction is lower in UAPA.
On the point of right to protest, John had objected to the allegations levelled against Saifi
that he participated in the CAA NRC protests.
She had also argued that the prosecution had largely relied on the chats exchanged on a
WhatsApp group between the accused persons. However, she had alleged, that the prosecution cannot pick and choose the messages in isolation. She argued that there are
multiple narratives that are apparent from the chats, however, the prosecution has read
only a few messages in isolation, and instead of a simple reading, is trying to attribute
meanings to it.
John had further argued that other than the bald statement made in the supplementary
chargesheet, there was no evidence to show that Khalid Saifi met Umar Khalid in
December 2019 or that Umar Khalid gave him any direction to raise a protest site at
Khureji.
John had submitted that none of the ingredients of ‘unlawful activity’ as defined under
Section 2(o) of UAPA have been shown by the Prosecution.
Section 2(o) defines “unlawful activity” as any action taken an individual or an
association, which is intended to bring about the cession of a part of the territory of
India; which disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
India; or which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India.
It was thus argued that none of the offences alleged against Khalid Saifi, punishable
under Sections 13 (Committing unlawful activities), 15 (Terrorist Act) and Section 17
(Terror Funding) or 18 (Conspiracy) of UAPA are met.
What did the Prosecution Argue?
Referring to sec. 15 of the UAPA Act which defines a terrorist act, SPP Prasad had argued
that while the riots were meticulously planned, there was destruction of properties,
disruption of essential services, use of petrol bombs, lathis, stones etc and therefore
meeting the criteria which is required under 15(1)(a)(i),(ii) and (iii) of the Act.
Prasad had added that a total of 53 people died during the riots, 142 people were Injured
in first phase of riots and other 608 were injured in the second phase.
He had argued that the 2020 sit-in protests were carefully planned, picking strategic
protest sites closer to 25 mosques. He had submitted that these sites were places with
religious significance but were purposely given Secular names to give legitimate
appearance to the allegedly communal protests.
He had referred to a December 20, 2019 meeting which was attended by Umar Khalid
with Harsh Mander, members of United Against Hate, Swatantra Nagrik Sangathan, etc.
He had averred that this meeting was key in deciding the areas of protest and strategies
to mitigate police clashes by keeping women at the forefront.
He had referred to a December 20, 2019 meeting which was attended by Umar Khalid
with Harsh Mander, members of United Against Hate, Swatantra Nagrik Sangathan, etc.
He had averred that this meeting was key in deciding the areas of protest and strategies
to mitigate police clashes by keeping women at the forefront.
He had said that while Umar Khalida’s public perception was to protect the Constitution
and waving the Indian flag, his agenda was different.
Main thrust of Prasad’s arguments was that the DPSG group was a highly sensitive group
wherein every small message was privately deliberated upon and then passed forward to
other members. Every decision taken was conscious and well thought over, he had said.
He had submitted that while the case of the prosecution is not that every person who
surfaces in the conspiracy has to be made an accused and that merely being silent on a
group does not make one an accused, however, he added that in case evidence is found
against any person, criminal action has to follow.
In this backdrop, he had argued that there was a ‘conspiracy of silence’ in committing the
2020 North East Delhi riots, idea behind which was to completely put the system under
paralysis.
The FIR against Khalid contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the
UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act,1984. The accused are also charged under various
offences mentioned under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In September last year, main chargesheet was filed against Pinjara Tod members and
JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif
Iqbal Tanha and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.
Others who were charge-sheeted included former Congress Councilor Ishrat Jahan,
Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-UrRehman, suspended AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem
Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.
Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in November against former JNU
student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to the
alleged larger conspiracy in the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February.
This article first appeared on livelaw.in