I specifically said Sharjeel Imam should not be allowed at protests site: Meeran Haider to Supreme Court in Delhi riots case

Delhi riots accused Meeran Haider told the Supreme Court on Monday that he had specifically objected to having Sharjeel Imam at the protests sites during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act movement in 2020.

Haider's counsel Siddharth Agarwal told a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that Haider had tweeted against having Imam at the protest sites and hence, the argument that he conspired with Imam was false.

"Allegation is I was in conspiracy with Sharjeel Imam. I put out a tweet that this person named Sharjeel Imam should not be allowed to any of the protests. He (Haider) was not present at any of the rioting sites, no CCTV footage," Agarwal said.

Further, the photograph of an alleged secret meeting produced by the prosecution does not show Haider's presence, it was argued.

"The photograph used by the prosecution does not show my presence in the secret meeting at Chandbag," Agarwal submitted.

"The person clicking the photo is not visible in the photograph," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded on behalf of the prosecution.

Agarwal further highlighted that Haider's name was not there in the chargesheet in relation to the Chandbag meeting photograph and only the names of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were there.

"Only Mr. Sharjeel imam and Mr. Umar Khalid are accused persons as on day. My name is not even there in the chargesheet under the same allegation. It is there in the counter affidavit. Those are my submissions," Agarwal said in conclusion.

The Court was hearing bail pleas filed by activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imamm, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and two others in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.

Besides Haider, the counsel for accused Umar Khalid, Shifa ur Rehman and Mohd. Saleem Khan also made submissions today.

The hearing in the case will continue on November 6, Thursday at 2 pm.

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 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. 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 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.

Arguments today

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, said he was not named in the 751 FIRs registered in connection with the riots and that he has been named an accused only in one FIR which deals with conspiracy.

"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 750 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," Sibal argued.

"How are you concerned with that?" asked Justice Kumar

"Just a fact," Sibal replied.

"Just to create prejudice," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju said on behalf of Delhi Police.

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Shifa ur Rehman, said that Rehman was cherry-picked by the prosecution and that he was not involved in any violence.

"I urge (the Court) to consider, to recall, during the Vietnam war there was the Chicago 7 trial. Essentially, nobody is in dispute that if there is a law you disagree with, you have a right to protest. Where is the line to be drawn - if somebody is protesting peacefully, to make that into a large horrendous crime? On behalf of the head of the alumni association of Jamia, no one has anywhere said that he was involved in violence. He has been cherry-picked and made an accused. Nothing under the UAPA Act is made out in any of the allegations. Even if we accept all allegations to be true. I have done nothing to delay the trial. Please look at the background of the person. He has fought for local body locations. He treats Jamia as his home. When the DPSG was formed, he was not a member of that group. He was involved in meetings to support the people taking part in the protest, but nobody has said he supported them in a manner that was unlawful," Khurshid submitted.

Khurshid said that Rehman was part of the anti-CAA protests but never did anything illegal or provoked anyone to indulge in violence or rioting.

"It is there in the chargesheet that the petitioner was not allowed to speak in the WhatsApp group. He was included in the Jamia coordination committee. He was not allowed to chair or speak. This comes from the chargesheet itself. When he was arrested, there were only two statements against him. The statements were there before he was arrested. They were all present in the protest movement. There was no evidence that I provoked. None of the witnesses have said that he has done anything illegal," Khurshid contended.

He also said that three others were granted bail and Rehman's case was similar to theirs. Thus, he sought parity for Rehman.

"On the issue of parity, if nothing else, on parity I am entitled to get bail. The three were granted bail by the High Court. It was not to be treated as precedent but it could be taken for the purpose of parity. Your lordships (Supreme Court) had sustained their bail," Khurshid pointed out.

He also said that Rehman did not speak at a meeting of Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia held on February 22.

"There is an argument which is an allegation of his having attended a meeting on the 22nd February, just around the time when the riots had happened. AAJMI office bearers were present and therefore it’s taken that I was present. I may have been present but whether I have participated or spoken anything is very critical at this point," he argued.

Khurshid also said that Gandhian way is to defy any unjust law through non-violence.

"We have always been told that the Gandhian method is that if there is an unjust law it is our moral obligation to defy the law," he concluded.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Meeran Haider, sought parity with three other accused who were granted bail in the same matter.

"According to the prosecution, ₹1.6 crore was the amount spent. The allegation was I received ₹80k in my bank account. In cash I got ₹4.5 lakh according to them, out of which I spent ₹2 lakh. When we balance the rights of accused with the prosecution, we are looking at an allegation saying that somebody paid ₹2 lakhs out of a ₹1.6 crore arrangement. 3 accused persons were granted bail by Delhi High Court in 2021. Same matter. Same conspirator. One of them was Aasif Iqbal Tanha. They were granted bail on merits. This judgment was challenged before this court. At the initial stage, it said that this judgement will not be considered as a precedent. Finally this Court upheld bail. The 3 persons are still on bail. The SLP by State was dismissed (by Supreme Court)," Agarwal said.

He further contended that the role attributed to Haider is much lesser in comparison to the three who got bail.

"There are 3 persons. They were granted bail. That bail was upheld. We raised the issue of parity before the high court. My role was much better, much lighter. I was arrested on 1st April 2020. I have spent 5 years and 7 months. Even in the last chargesheet it is said that the investigation is still going on," Agarwal submitted.

He also pointed out that Haider was released on interim bail previously and he had promptly surrendered on time without tampering with any evidence or attempting to influence witnesses.

"I (Haider) was released on interim bail, I surrendered on time, I did not tamper with any evidence. Prosecution has not admitted that investigation qua me is over. They filed a chargesheet without my arrest. My presence was not threatening the witnesses or their investigation," he contended.

Agarwal also highlighted that Haider's name was not there even in the chargesheet in connection with the secret meeting at Chandbag.

"Only Mr. Sharjeel Imam and Mr. Umar Khalid are accused persons as on day. My name is not even there in the chargesheet under the same allegation it is there in the counter affidavit. Those are my submissions," Agarwal said in conclusion.

Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, appearing for accused Mohd. Saleem Khan, said that he was neither a member of any group nor did he deliver any speech or indulge in violence. He was merely a resident of Chand Bagh, one of the areas affected by the riots.

Hence, his case stands on a different footing, it was argued.

"I am a permanent resident of Chand Bagh. It was one of the areas affected by the riots. I reside there with my children. I was arrested first in 2020. While I was in custody, I was arrested in 2022 in the present FIR. As far as the other FIRs are concerned, I am on bail. I am not a member of any organisation. I am not even a member of any WhatsApp group. There is not even a single speech, let alone any inflammatory speech, qua me. There is no victim that has come forth and said I have acted in violence. Allegation is that I was one of the main organisers of the Chand Bagh protest. My presence in the meetings is recorded by witness statements two months after my arrest. Prosecution relies on CCTV footage in which I am not there. The allegation is that I was using a wiper to turn away a camera. The High Court notes the allegation and states that it is by itself not sufficient to prolong my custody. There is a fundamental aspect on which I can distinguish myself," Khazanchi said.

It was also pointed out that he was released on interim bail six times and he surrendered promptly each time.

"This person has also been released on interim bail 6 times. He has surrendered on each occasion. The purpose this indulgence (of interim bail) was granted for the welfare of his children. Enough has been said in delay and parity. The same principles apply to my case. I am also in custody for 5 years. The role prescribed to the persons granted bail are much more graver," Khazanchi said in conclusion.

The hearing will continue on November 6 at 2 pm.

[Read Live Coverage]