Today, On 6th November, In the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case, accused Umar Khalid and others have concluded their submissions before the Supreme Court. The Bench has scheduled the Delhi Police to begin presenting its arguments on November 11, continuing the high-profile hearing.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing the bail pleas filed by several accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
The matter came up before a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
The bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider are being heard together.
The case is linked to allegations that the accused were part of a conspiracy to incite violence during the 2020 riots in Delhi, which occurred following protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for accused Shadab Ahmed, informing the Bench that he is “accused number 9” and was arrested on May 28, 2020.
Justice Aravind Kumar informed the parties that the Bench would rise early for the day, and the Delhi Police would likely begin its arguments on Monday or Tuesday.
Luthra pointed out that his client had already been granted bail in two other related FIRs. FIR 60 (Ratan Lal death case) on September 3, 2021, and FIR 136 (Maruti showroom case) on December 21.
He clarified that the present case pertains to the “larger conspiracy.”
He told the court that his client, aged 27, has been employed as a supervisor at NDS Enterprises in Jagatpuri since 2016. Luthra argued that there was no sanction under Section 195 CrPC and no complaint under Section 195 was recorded in the chargesheet.
He further contended that the Gurvinder principle would not apply in this case.
Luthra said,
“Arguments on charges have concluded, and I was given two days. In this context, we can rely on the 2024 Gurwinder Singh judgment, which held that bail should not be granted in similar circumstances,”
Highlighting discrepancies, Luthra told the court that “radium and sodium came in the fourth chargesheets; they were not there earlier.”
He said that although his client’s name appeared in the first chargesheet, these substances were added only later.
He noted that the first reference to his client appeared in January 2020 through a photograph of a protest site. According to the Delhi Police, he was part of the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG).
However, Luthra argued that many chats placed on record did not include his client.
Adding that the police had termed DPSG as a solidarity group, he said,
“I am not in those chats. I am pointing out the worst against me so that no one later says otherwise,”
He clarified,
“According to them, I’m part of the DPSG, but the Shadab mentioned is from the JCC, not me. They claim I was visited by Shadab Ahmed on January 23 and refer to multiple chats, but I’m not part of any of those,”
At one point, Justice Kumar asked Luthra,
“Why do you call it a chakka jam?”
Luthra replied,
“It basically means stopping the wheels of traffic. It’s a common form of protest in DU, and all such events used to happen often.”
After hearing the submissions of Senior Advocate Luthra, the Bench adjourned the matter, listing it for further hearing on Tuesday, when the Delhi Police is expected to commence its arguments.
Earlier, On 3rd November, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, told the Supreme Court that out of 751 Delhi riots FIRs, 116 cases have been tried and 97 ended in acquittals, with 17 involving fabricated documents, exposing poor investigation quality.
Explaining Khalid’s position, Sibal said,
“There were 751 FIRs each with the jurisdictional police. I was in one of them. I was discharged. There was another FIR which deals with conspiracy. I am in that. Not in any of the 751 FIRs. The 750 are separate. I am not involved in any of them. I was discharged in December 2022. I am involved in the conspiracy case. Of the 751, 116 cases have been tried and concluded out of which 97 ended up in acquittal. In 17 out of those cases there was fabrication of documents.”
Countering his argument, ASG S.V. Raju remarked that such references were made “just to create prejudice.”
ASG SV Raju, representing the Centre, said, “There are some people who do not deserve even a day’s release.”
Previously, On 31st October Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, and Siddharth Dave made strong submissions before the Supreme Court in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, arguing that the prolonged incarceration of their clients violated the principles of liberty and fairness.
Appearing for activist Gulfisha Fatima, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Bench that his client had been in custody for more than five years without trial.
Additionally, during earlier hearing , Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, told the supreme court that 59 hearing days were lost due to the DSP’s absence and lawyers’ strikes, yet Umar Khalid is blamed for delays, even though he said, “The day when the riots took place I was not in Delhi.”
Previously, The Delhi Police firmly opposed the release of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and three others charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
In a statement to the Supreme Court, the police contended that the alleged offenses represented a deliberate attempt to undermine the state, thus justifying “jail and not bail,” as reported by media outlets on Thursday.
The police argued that the petitioners were attempting to portray themselves as victims due to prolonged imprisonment, even though the delay in the trial was a result of their own actions.
In a detailed 177-page affidavit submitted on October 30, the Delhi Police argued that the violence that erupted in February 2020 was not merely a spontaneous reaction to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but rather a part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent, according to a report in the media.
This development comes just a day before the case is set for a hearing.
The prosecution, as cited by media, alleged that the plan intended to provoke communal tensions during US President Donald Trump’s visit, aiming to ‘internationalise’ the unrest and portray the Government of India as discriminatory.
Recently, a bench consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria urged the enforcement agency to reconsider whether the accused many of whom have been held in judicial custody as undertrials for nearly five years could be granted bail.
Also Read: India’s 53rd Chief Justice: Centre Approves Appointment of Justice Surya Kant As CJI
Under the UAPA, courts must first establish that the allegations do not, even on a prima facie basis, indicate involvement in terrorist activities before bail can be granted.
The Delhi Police argued that this threshold has not been met in this case.
The affidavit, filed by advocate Rajat Nair, claimed that investigators have gathered ocular, documentary, and technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused were part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” driven by communal motives.
The police indicated that encrypted chats and messages show the protests were strategically timed to coincide with Trump’s visit in February 2020, ensuring global attention.
The prosecution also pointed to unrest that erupted around the same time in various states, including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Bihar, suggesting a “pan-India plan” rather than isolated incidents.
Recently, 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.
During that hearing, 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,”
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
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
