Umar Khalid’s counsel told a Delhi Court that the 2020 riots case under UAPA rests solely on delayed witness statements, with “no physical evidence, other than one speech,” arguing that the prosecution “doesn’t need evidence, it only needs statements.”
The counsel for Umar Khalid, who is accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 riots, argued in a Delhi Court that the Delhi Police’s “larger conspiracy” case is based solely on delayed witness statements, lacking any concrete physical evidence.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais presented these arguments before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Courts, opposing the framing of charges in FIR 59 of 2020, currently under investigation by the Delhi Police Special Cell.
Also Read : BREAKING| CJI Gavai Dismisses Plea Seeking Criminal Contempt Against AG R. Venkataramani
Pais stated,
“This is a case of no physical evidence, other than one speech. You can catch hold of anyone 11 months after the event, get them to say anything, and call it a UAPA case. The prosecution’s case is that it doesn’t need evidence, it only needs statements,”
He emphasized that relying solely on statements recorded months after the riots would render the case ineffective and suggested it should not have even been registered as an FIR. He reiterated that there were no recoveries, no financial trails, and no claims of fund procurement linked to Khalid.
Pais also noted that while Khalid was added to four WhatsApp groups, he only sent three messages, all within the DPSG group, and none in the others, including MSJ.
He raised concerns about the timing of witness statements, describing them as “extremely suspicious,” as they were recorded months or even a year after the supposed conspiracy.
He questioned,
“Normally, some kind of evidence precedes an FIR. Here, the FIR came first and the statements much later. If the conspiracy was known in March, why does the main witness surface in September?”
He also added,
“key witnesses participated in protest activities yet were,conveniently treated as witnesses, not accused.”
Furthermore, Pais reminded the court that Khalid is only accused in one of the 751 FIRs related to the riots and has been in custody since September 2020. He previously characterized the case as a “joke of an FIR” and accused the police of selectively naming Khalid while allowing others with “bigger roles” to go uncharged.
The hearing is set to continue on October 28 and 29.
Earlier, On September 2, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Khalid, stating that the allegations against him and co-accused Sharjeel Imam appeared to be “grave.”
Khalid has since challenged this bail denial before the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the case on October 27.
While denying bail, the Delhi High Court remarked that “violence in the name of protest is not free speech,” as it dismissed the bail applications of Khalid, Imam, and seven others involved in the larger conspiracy case related to the riots.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, in a comprehensive 133-page judgment, stated,
“Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the State machinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of the freedom of speech, expression, and association.”
The court highlighted that the roles of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the conspiracy appeared prima facie serious, noting their involvement in delivering inflammatory speeches aimed at mobilizing the Muslim community.
The plea for parity with co-accused was also rejected. The judges pointed out that although others participated in conspiratorial meetings and WhatsApp groups, their roles were “limited when juxtaposed with these Appellants.”
In addition to Khalid, there are nearly seventeen individuals accused in the case.
The Delhi Police’s Special Cell filed FIR 59 of 2020, naming several individuals, including Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shifa-ur-Rehman. The accused face serious charges under the UAPA as well as various sections of the Indian Penal Code concerning criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity, rioting, and murder.
This case originates from the violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulting in widespread stone-pelting, arson, and violence, claiming 53 lives and injuring thousands.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
