The prosecution has told the Delhi High Court that the “narratives” sought to be created by Khalid cannot be looked into as his defense at the stage of bail, in response to an appeal filed by student activist Umar Khalid challenging the Trial Court’s order refusing him bail in the larger conspiracy case involving the Delhi riots.

The prosecution also stated in the brief reply that viewing Khalid’s role in the conspiracy case in isolation would be illegal under the law.

“The Appellant before the Ld. Trial Court raised ipse dixit arguments seeking to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of deciding the bail application and to view the Appellant’s role in isolation in the case of conspiracy which is impermissible in law. The Ld. Trial Court, vide the impugned order, rightly dismissed the bail application of the Appellant by a well-reasoned order dealing with every speculative argument raised by the Appellant. At the cost of repetition, it is humbly submitted that the impugned Order suffers from no illegality which merits interference by this Hon’ble Court,” the reply read.

The prosecution has told the Delhi High Court that the “narratives” sought to be created by Khalid cannot be looked into as his defense at the stage of bail, in response to an appeal filed by student activist Umar Khalid challenging the Trial Court’s order refusing him bail in the larger conspiracy case involving the Delhi riots.

The prosecution also stated in the brief reply that viewing Khalid’s role in the conspiracy case in isolation would be illegal under the law.

“It is humbly submitted that at the stage of bail, the narratives sought to be created by the Appellant cannot be looked into as his defense,” the reply reads.

As a result, the prosecution claims that the appeal offers no good grounds for the High Court to consider and hence must be dismissed.

Last Monday, a division bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar issued a notice in the appeal, saying that Umar Khalid’s speech in Amravati, which was found in the FIR in question, was obnoxious, nasty, derogatory, and prima facie not acceptable.

Justice Mridul remarked, “All this is offensive and obnoxious. Don’t you think these expressions used are offensive to people? These are offensive per se. It’s almost as if we get an impression that only one community fought for India’s independence.”

He added “Did Gandhiji ever employ this language? Did Shaheed Bhagat Singh ever employ such language? We have no qualms about permitting free speech but what are you saying?”

The case is set to be heard the following day.

On March 24, the city’s Karkardooma Court denied Umar Khalid bail. He was apprehended on September 13, 2020, and has been held since.

Session Extensions Judge Amitabh Rawat thought that Khalid had connections with many of the accused and that his involvement in various WhatsApp groups from the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in the December 2019 to February 2020 riots had to be read in its entirety rather than piecemeal.

In response to Pais’ claim that Umar Khalid was not present in Delhi during the riots, the Court held that in a conspiracy case, it is not required for all of the defendants to be there at the same time.

As a result of reviewing the charge­sheet and associated evidence, the Court concluded that the charges against Umar Khalid were prima facie true, and thus the bar for release was triggered under Section 43D of the UAPA.

The Court remarked that Umar Khalid’s name appears often throughout the conspiracy, from the outset until the riots. He was a member of the JNU Muslim Students WhatsApp group. He attended several meetings. In his speech in Amaravati, he mentioned Donald Trump. He was a key figure in the formation of JCC. In the aftermath of the riots, he was also mentioned in a flurry of phone calls.

The goal, according to the Court, was to block roads in mixed-population areas and encircle the entire area, preventing citizens from entering or exiting, and then to create panic, causing women protesters in front to attack police officers, followed by other ordinary people, resulting in a riot, which would be covered by the definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA.

While the rallies against the Citizenship Amendment Act were secular, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais maintained that the charge sheet issued by the Delhi Police was communal. He further said that, while the prosecution insisted that chakka jam was equivalent to a terror act, Chakka Jam is not an infraction and has been used by students and others during various agitations.

He went on to say that the charge sheet and FIR 59/2020 both exhibited a pattern of ‘false implication’ in the testimony of ‘made up witnesses.’ He said that one of the witness statements, taken three days before Umar Khalid’s arrest, was fabricated to “fit the arrest.”

Referring to section 15 of the UAPA Act, which defines a terrorist act, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad argued that while the riots were meticulously planned, they resulted in property destruction, disruption of essential services, and the use of petrol bombs, lathis, and stones, among other things, thus meeting the criteria set out in 15(1)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Act.

According to Prasad, 53 people died in total during the riots, 142 people were hurt in the first phase, and another 608 were injured in the second phase.

He said that the 2020 sit-in protests were well planned, with key protest locations around 25 mosques chosen. He claimed that these locations had religious importance but were given secular names to give the supposed communal protests a more respectable appearance.

He mentioned a meeting on December 20, 2019, that included Umar Khalid, Harsh Mander, members of United Against Hate, Swatantra Nagrik Sangathan, and others. He claimed that this conference was crucial in determining the protest places and measures for reducing police conflicts by putting women at the forefront.