Regime change operation, plan to kill non-Muslims: Delhi Police oppose bail to Umar Khalid, others in Supreme Court

After the Supreme Court pulled it up for the delay in replying to the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others in connection with the Delhi Riots conspiracy case, the Delhi Police has filed a 389-page affidavit detailing why the accused should not be granted bail.

The Police has cited "ocular and irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence" that point to a conspiracy to incite "nationwide riots on communal lines".

It has also relied heavily on the recent judgment in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in which the Delhi High Court blamed the accused on bail in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case for the delay in the trial in the case and said that the same was impacting those still in jail.

Below are the eight grounds on which the Delhi Police has opposed the bail pleas.

1. Conspiracy was pan-India "regime change operation"

"The conspiracy hatched, nurtured and executed by the petitioner was to strike at the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of the country by destroying the communal harmony; instigating the crowd not only to abrogate public order but to instigate them to an extent of armed rebellion...

...Note:- The international theory developed in past few years have termed these kinds of organised/sponsored protests as ” Regime Change Operation(s)”....

...Evidence on record suggest that the instant conspiracy was sought to be replicated and executed PAN India."

2. Strategic protests during Trump visit

"The materials on record, including the chats referencing U.S. President Donald Trump, establish beyond doubt that the instant conspiracy was pre-planned to be executed at the time when US president was to make an official visit to India. This was done so as to draw the attention of ‘international media’ and to make the issue of CAA a global issue by portraying it as an act pogrom of Muslims community in India. The issue of CAA was carefully chosen as to serve as a “radicalising catalyst” camouflaged in the name of “peaceful protest”."

3. For UAPA offences, jail is the rule

"In the offences which strike at the very root of integrity of India [UAPA offences] “JAIL AND NOT BAIL” is the rule...The allegations against the petitioner is prima-facie true. The onus of refuting the said presumption rests with the petitioners which they have miserably failed to discharge. The bail in the present case, specifically in view of the extreme severe gravity of the offence cannot be granted only on the ground of delay."

4. Accused themselves responsible for delay in trial

• Both the High Court as well as the special court has given judicial findings after findings, elaborating as to how the petitioners working in tandem have not allowed charges to be framed in the matter;

• It was only on the intervention of the appellate courts that with great difficulty the Section 207 proceedings (furnishing of police report to accused) could get concluded;

• Despite the order of day to day hearing, petitioners again did not allow the special court to proceed with framing of charges and delayed the trial for over 2 years.

• Attempt has been made by the petitioners to suppress the judgment in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi from the Supreme Court, which clearly gives irrefutable findings as to how the petitioners have not allowed the trial to proceed in the matter.

5. Not 900 witnesses, only 155

Argument that the trial is not likely to be completed any time soon due to 900 witnesses is not only premature but also a red herring manufactured to obtain bail.

Perusal of the list of witnesses would demonstrate that there are approximately 155 public witnesses; out of which 58 witnesses have on oath given their respective statements. As many as 47 witnesses have been granted protected status, out of which 38 have recorded their statements under Section 164 CrPC, while the remaining have given their respective statements under Section 161 CrPC.

6. Umar Khalid has already withdrawn his bail plea before Supreme Court

Since Khalid had withdrawn his petition before the Supreme Court in February 2024, the findings of the High Court have attained finality. Therefore, the Court ought not to permit the accused to file successive bail applications so as to circumvent or reopen issues that have already attained finality.

7. Chakka Jaam to kill non-Muslims

The motive of disruptive Chakka-Jaam was killing and injuring police personnel and non-Muslims on a mass scale and to damage the government as well as private property by engineering communal riots. It is relevant to note that Sharjeel Imam has written thesis on riots and his knowledge of accumulating critical mass for engineering riots is reflected in his speeches along with the communal tag which is ex-facie apparent.

8. WhatsApp groups and meetings

For achieving their goals of terror incidents, JCC WhatsApp group was created using a mobile number, procured on fake documents which is a clear indication of dubious nature of usage that the number was put to and the hidden object that was sought to be achieved.

A communal WhatsApp group, namely “Muslim students of JNU”, was created on the directions of Umar Khalid. It is evident from the statement of BOND (witness) on oath where he had explained the difference between Dharna and Chakka Jaam.