The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the bail petitions filed by six accused - Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan - in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria concluded the hearing on Wednesday.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, said that 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," he said.

The Court questioned the Delhi Police for placing reliance on an unrelated 2016 FIR concerning "tukde tukde" slogans allegedly raised at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

"Why are you showing prior FIR for riots that happened in 2020? What has it got to do with it?," the Bench asked.

It eventually reserved its verdict in the matter and also said that it will take a decision in the case before the Court closes for winter break on December 19.

Hence, it asked the parties to compile and submit all relevant documents by December 18.

"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 by December 18 so that before vacations, we can take a decision," the Bench said.

Background

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 anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly as well as several other offences under UAPA.

He has been in jail since then.

Imam too was booked in multiple FIRs across several States, mostly under sedition and UAPA charges. Though he secured bail in other matters, he is yet to get bail in the present case on larger consipracy.

On September 2, the Delhi High Court denied the accused bail, prompting Khalid and the others to move the Supreme Court for relief. The top court had issued notice to the police on September 22.

In response to the bail petitions, the Delhi Police filed an affidavit contending that there is irrefutable documentary and technical evidence pointing 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 matter on October 31, the riots accused told the Court that they did not make any calls for violence and were only exercising their right to peaceful protests against the CAA.

Meanwhile, the Delhi Police argued that the six accused cannot seek parity with the three other accused who were granted bail earlier by the Delhi High Court.

On November 18, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the Delhi police that the riots were pre-planned and not spontaneous. He added that speeches made by the accused were made with the intent to divide society on communal lines.

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.

Similar arguments were made on November 21 as well, when the police contended that the accused had tried to effect a regime change in India through riots like those which took place recently in Bangladesh and Nepal.

When the matter was heard on December 3, the top court asked the six accused to furnish their permanent addresses to the court.

The accused concluded their arguments on December 9.

Arguments today

ASG SV Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, said that the prosecution cannot be blamed for delay in trial.

"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."

"You brought Umar Khalid in the second chargesheet. Their grievance is you went one after the other," Justice Kumar said.

"The court has already taken cognisance. The material that they are waiting for may not even come," ASG replied.

"Then you should have said so," the Court retorted.

"We were ready. there is no delay on the part of the prosecution. They said we want hard copies of everything. 30,000 pages," ASG responded.

He also alleged that Khalid deliberately left Delhi before riots to absolve himself.

"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 Delhi Protest Support 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," Raju argued.

They later migrated to Signal for communications, he alleged.

"On March 11, 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," he claimed

He also sought to highlight the FIR of 2016 in relation to the slogans raised at JNU.

"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," he said while handing over the 2016 FIR to court.

The Court said that too many documents were being handed over to court causing confusion.

"It is very difficult tracing all this. In High Courts it is much better. This applies to them (the accused side) also. They keep handing out documents like magicians. Your instructing counsel have adopted a policy - either convince the judge or confuse the judge," Justice Kumar remarked.

He also demanded what was the relevance of the 2016 FIR to the present case.

"Why are you showing prior FIR for riots that happened in 2020? What has it got to do with it?," the Bench asked.

"Conspiracy begins before the act. Conspiracy can start even 2 years before. It happens before the act. 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 call data records is evidence of that," Raju argued.

Umar Khalid was actively involved in all the meetings and he was supervising and getting all the information, he submitted.

"He (Umar Khalid) was taking minute to minute information about the riots, the chakka jaams and the protests," Raju stated.

"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," the Bench said.

"Speech led to action," the ASG said.

"What action? How do you link it to this?" the Bench asked.

"Speech gives an idea of what was planned. There were meetings," Raju responded.

"Conspiratorial meetings will fall under section 13(1)(b) at the best. This is what was argued," Justice Kumar remarked.

"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 security or use of bombs..." the ASG said.

"You are not attributing the use of these things with these persons in the chargesheet," Justice Kumar asked.

"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," the ASG contended.

The Court granted parties time till December 18 to submit all documents in relation to the matter.

[Read Live Coverage]