The Supreme Court is hearing the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in the larger conspiracy case in relation to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria is hearing the matter.
Khalid and others moved the top court against the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying them bail. The top court had issued notice to the police on September 22.
The riots occurred in February 2020 following clashes over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As per the Delhi Police, the riots caused the death of 53 persons and injured hundreds.
The present case pertains to allegations that the accused had hatched a larger conspiracy to cause multiple riots. The FIR in this case was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA.
Most of the accused were booked in multiple FIRs, leading to multiple bail petitions before different courts. Most have been in custody since 2020.
Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, as well as several other offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
He has been in jail since then.
The trial court had first denied him bail in March 2022. He then approached the High Court, which also denied him relief in October 2022, prompting him to file an appeal before the top court.
In May 2023, the Supreme Court sought the response of the Delhi Police in the matter. His plea before the top court was then adjourned 14 times.
On February 14, 2024, he withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court, citing a change in circumstances.
On May 28, the trial court rejected his second bail petition. An appeal against the same was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on September 2, prompting the present plea before the apex court.
Imam too was booked in multiple FIRs across several States, mostly under sedition and UAPA charges.
In the case registered over speeches he gave at Jamia Milia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University, he was granted bail by the Delhi High Court last year. In the sedition cases registered in Aligarh and Guwahati, he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in 2021 and the Gauhati High Court in 2020, respectively. He was also booked in FIRs in Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur.
The Court had earlier pulled up the Delhi Police for failing to file its response to the bail pleas.
Subsequently, the Delhi Police filed a 389-page affidavit detailing why the accused should not be granted bail.
The Delhi Police claimed irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence that pointed to a conspiracy for a "regime-change operation" and plans to incite nationwide riots on communal lines and kill non-Muslims.
During the hearing of the case on November 20, the Delhi Police told the top court that the accused are anti-nationals who tried to overthrow the regime through violence.
When the matter was heard on December 3, the top court asked the six accused to furnish their permanent addresses to the court.
The six accused concluded their arguments yesterday.
The Delhi Police will make their arguments today.
Live updates from today's hearing here.
Hearing starts
ASG Raju for Delhi Police: Acts of one conspirator can be be attributed to others. Sharjeel Imam’s speeches can be attributed to Umar Khalid…Sharjeel Imam’s case will be considered as evidence against the others.
ASG Raju: ...On delay. The accused can’t say wait for further evidence to come and then I’ll argue on charges. If other evidence comes you can modify charge. There can be discharge if there is no evidence. But they can’t say they won’t argue on charges till other evidence comes.
Justice Kumar: You brought Umar Khalid in the second chargesheet. Their grievance is you went one after the other…
ASG Raju: The court has already taken cognisance. The material that they are waiting for may not even come.
Justice Kumar: Then you should have said so.
ASG Raju: We were ready. there is no delay on the part of the prosecution. They said we want hard copies of everything. 30000 pages.
Raju reads from 164 statements of witnesses.
ASG Raju: He (Umar Khalid) has deliberately planned to leave Delhi before the riots happened. He wanted to deflect responsibility. The planning was done by Umar Khalid. They have misstated that he was not admin of DPSG group and only admins could send messages. Everyone could post messages before March 11 including Umar Khalid. After March 11 they deleted everything and subsequently he was not made an admin.
ASG Raju: On 11.3.2020 they migrated to Signal. Therefore the fact that he could not post on that group (DPSG - Delhi protest support group) is wrong. Till the crucial dates he could. Later they made that change.
ASG Raju: About Bharat tere tukde tukde honge - entire FIR which had this anti national slogan was relied on this in this chargesheet. it was a subject matter of FIR No. 110/16.
ASG Raju hands documents to the court master
Justice Kumar: It is very difficulty tracing all this. It high courts it is much better. This applies to them also. They keep handing out documents like magicians.
The court struggles finding paragraphs from where Raju is reading.
Justice Kumar: Your instructing counsels have adopted a policy - either convince the judge or confuse the judge.
Justice Kumar: Why are you showing prior FIR for riots that happened in 2020? What has it got to do with it?
ASG Raju: Conspiracy begins before the act. Conspiracy can start even 2 years before. It happens before the act.
Justice Kumar: We want all this (all the documents) in one compilation. Volume 1,2,3. Otherwise this will go like a wildfire.
ASG Raju: We will complete and then give it.
Justice Kumar: Yes.
ASG Raju: As per protected witness James all instructions came from Umar Khalid. The decisions of JCC used to come from Umar Khalid and Nadeem Khan. Umar Khalid was actually present on the ground on the first stage of the protest. There is CDR evidence of that.
ASG Raju continues reading statements of protected witnesses.
ASG Raju: He (Umar Khalid) was actively involved in all the meetings. He was supervising, getting all the information.
ASG Raju: He (Umar Khalid) was taking minute to minute information about the riots, the chakka jaams and the protests.
ASG Raju continues reading statement of protected witnesses:
ASG Raju: This says he had collected arms.
Justice Kumar: This was collected subsequent to the registration of FIR?
ASG Raju: Yes. During the course of the investigation. There is no hearsay as they (the accused) have argued.
ASG Raju: All these things (protected witness statements) disprove their (accused’s) arguments.
ASG Raju: Parity and change of circumstance I have already discussed. It was argued that Vernon’s case came subsequently so there is change in circumstance. But the principles of Vernon’s case were already applied by the trial court.
ASG Raju: The regime change argument was there in our original chargesheet. Gulfisha was also actively involved. I have highlighted her role in my note. On behalf of Shadab Ahmad very incorrect statements were made.
Raju corroborates the allegedly incorrect statements with protected witness statements given under 164 CrPC.
Justice Kumar: How do you bring conspiracy under section 15? (Of UAPA). They are saying speech has nothing do with action. Their contention is it’s only a speech.
ASG Raju: Speech led to action.
Justice Kumar: What action? How do you link it to this?
ASG Raju: Speech gives an idea of what was planned. There were meetings.
Justice Kumar: Conspiratorial meetings will fall under section 13(1)(b) at the best. This is what was argued.
ASG Raju: Their speech reveals that economic security would be affected. It is not an unlawful act. It will fall under the purview of a terrorist act. Any act which intends to threaten unity or integrity or economic securit or use of bombs…
Justice Kumar: You are not attributing the use of these things with these persons in the chargesheet.
ASG Raju: I am not arguing the substantive offence. I am arguing on conspiracy. The conspiracy was to use all this. Whether the used there is separate charge sheet for that. The conspiracy was to use the petrol bomb and they have used. And for the use separate case is there. This is for conspiracy. They are confusing conspiracy with the substantive offence. The conspiracy has caused so many other incidents.
Order: Heard the Ld. ASG.
Advocates appearing for both the sides having argued for considerable length of time and have produced authorities, memos, short synopsis, long synopsis, written arguments, charts, list of dates, list of events, etc as and when oral arguments were tendered. For the proposes of convenience it was taken on record and now we call upon the advocates from amongst them shall entrust the said documents to be collated, collected and compiled in one single convenience compilation. The same would also equally apply to the counsel appearing for the respondents who shall also compile the same and file in the court. The said exercise shall be undertaken and completed …
Justice Kumar: how much time you want?
ASG Raju: 10 days
Accused side: 2 days.
Justice Kumar: On or before 18th December. So that before vacations we can take a decision.
Hearing ends.
Judgement reserved.