Umar Khalid told the court that he has been in custody for five years even though no violence occurred, no weapons were found, and the chargesheet was embellished by the prosecution, stressing that without evidence, there is no criminality.
Umar Khalid informed the sessions court at Karkardooma that the prosecution has added embellishments to the chargesheet regarding the larger conspiracy case tied to the 2020 Delhi Riots.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, argued that the Delhi Police has distorted witness statements.
He stated,
“He [Khalid] has been in custody for 5 years for this. No violence had occurred. No weapons were recovered. Chargesheet has embellishment added by prosecution. Without evidence, there is no criminality,”
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai listened to Khalid’s arguments concerning the charges in the Delhi Riots case and scheduled further discussions for tomorrow. Khalid refuted each charge individually, asserting that mere membership in WhatsApp groups and student organizations does not constitute a crime.
He questioned the rationale behind selecting certain individuals from these groups while excluding others.
He stated,
“What is the criminality in belonging to a WhatsApp group? Participation in a meeting is not an offence. Calling for a chakka jam is not an offence. Other members of the meeting have not been arraigned as accused. There has to be some basis for separating us from others. How are the accused chosen?”
He argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any criminality and has based its case on witness statements that are hearsay and therefore inadmissible.
Pais contended,
“Allegations are hearsay based on witness statements. I did not direct anyone to create the group. What is criminal in the group? I am not associated anyway…Khalid has not messaged on the WhatsApp groups. He has no connection with the groups,”
He pointed out that the prosecution relied on a photo from a “secret meeting” uploaded by a member who is not among the accused.
“Why would it be uploaded on Facebook if it was a secret meeting?”
Pais also stated that the murder charge against Khalid lacks evidence.
He stated,
‘Murder has been put against me. Who did I murder? I am not named in those FIRs where people died. Proof of the pudding is in the eating,”
He added,
“CAA is an unjust law. Students are allowed to protest against an unjust law.”
After concluding his arguments for the day, Pais requested that Khalid be allowed two books in Tihar Jail, including one on cricket.
The court is currently deliberating on the charges in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case.
The accused in this case include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, and Faizan Khan.
The violence occurred during protests against the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), resulting in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
According to the allegations, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman and Meeran Haider were involved in orchestrating protests, delivering inflammatory speeches and mobilising crowds, which, as per the prosecution, triggered the large-scale violence in Delhi in 2020.
They are now seeking bail from the Supreme Court under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning the February 2020 Delhi riots. In 2020, Imam was arrested under the UAPA and identified as the main conspirator in the Delhi riots case.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is set to hear the bail applications filed by Khalid and others on Friday, October 31.
Earlier, On September 2, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Imam, Khalid, and seven others: Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima. On the same day, another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, had his bail plea rejected by a different bench of the High Court.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case