Delhi Police today opposed grant of bail to Pinjra Tod members, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal in the Delhi riots case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by the Delhi High Court. [Devangana Kalita vs State) (Natasha Narwal vs State]..Special Public Prosecutor Amit Mahajan argued before the Delhi High Court that Kalita and Narwal were aware of the conspiracy that the anti-Citizenship Act protests were not intended to be peaceful and therefore, cannot claim to be mute protestors. "You were aware of the conspiracy that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were up to.. They were aware about their intentions...that their only role was to sit on a dharna, is incorrect to say.", Mahajan argued. .It was contended that Kalita and Narwal were "hand-in-glove" with the other conspirators and thus formed part of the larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of February 2020. .Kalita and Narwal's pleas seeking bail were listed for hearing before a Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani..Mahajan further contended that the chargesheet, WhatsApp group chats and call data record showed that prima facie, all members of the group knew that a chakka jam was being planned. .Reading the relevant portions from the WhatsApp chat, Mahajan claimed, "People within the group itself opposed.. they continued to do things which had the potential and were actually against the unity of the country." .Mahajan also submitted that it was not necessary to show that Kalita and Narwal took part in all "steps of the conspiracy". .He said, ."It not necessary that they took actual part when Sharjeel Imam made the speech or when pamphlets were distributed..When they chose to become members of the group, the presumption is that they were aware of the intention of the members." .Further arguments will continue on April 9. .In January, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, Karkardooma Court had refused to grant bail to Kalita and Narwal after opining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against them were prima face true..Upholding the invocation of UAPA in the present case, the Delhi Court had said that intentionally blocking roads which resulted in disruption of essential services, attack on police personnel that ultimately culminated in riots fell within the scope of "terrorist act" under UAPA.