Six months after Umar Khalid filed a bail application in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case registered against him in relation to the Delhi Riots, a Delhi Court on Thursday reserved its order [Umar Khalid v. State]..Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat reserved the order for pronouncement on March 14 after hearing submissions from Senior Counsel Trideep Pais and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad..Today's hearing, which was at the stage of the defence’s rebuttal and the prosecution’s concluding remarks, revolved substantially around Khalid’s speech in Amravati, Maharashtra, which the prosecution had labelled as incriminating..On the point of the latest chargesheet using the words “diabolical, insidious, rabid” to denote the February 2020 violence, Pais had on Wednesday argued that there was nothing diabolical about Khalid’s speech in Amravati, Maharashtra.On Thursday, however, Prasad retorted, saying the speech had to be seen in the context of the prevailing circumstances at that time. He said the permission for Khalid to give a speech at the Amravati event had initially been rejected by the Maharashtra Home Department. Thus, his speech was in violation of the government order, Prasad argued.“Speech alone we can't see in isolation. We have to see the conduct. This is a case of conspiracy. We can't isolate the role of each person. We have to see the wholesome conduct. Speech is given at a time, we have seen from chats, how a Twitter army is put in place to make sure that whatever videos are uploaded are widely circulated on social media,” Prasad submitted..He further said that Khalid was a "key player” in the entire scheme of things. According to the prosecution, the speech acted as a starting point of the “Mahila Yatra” in Delhi.“...Call is 'road pe niklo' (let’s hit the roads). It is like chalo Dilli (let’s go to Delhi,” added Prasad..Pais, on the other hand, said that Khalid attending a meeting at Jantar Mantar in Delhi was not illegal.He went on to argue that merely because permission to give the speech was rejected initially, did not mean it was terror act. Pais also opposed a First Information Report (FIR) registered in connection with the violation of the government order in Amravati as illegal and stated that it did not mention Khalid’s name.“Based on the FIR am I an accused of terror act in Delhi? I'm in Bihar,” Pais contended.He also noted that there were “worse speeches on internet” but Khalid was booked under the UAPA for a speech that had elicited no material.“Dissent can never be marked if we stick to the line,” Pais remarked..The bail hearing saw some interesting arguments over the course of the six months by the defence and the prosecution, which had alleged that Delhi riots were part of a premeditated, deep-rooted conspiracy which was hatched by the accused persons.While Pais on one occasion said the only way the police officer could have known about Khalid creating an alibi was if he was inside Khalid’s mind. He, thus, remarked that the last person who travelled with someone and got into their mind was Voldemort in Harry Potter.On another instance, the senior counsel said a number of persons protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the protest was secular in nature but the chargesheet was communal..[Delhi Riots] Protest was secular, chargesheet is communal: Umar Khalid to Delhi court.Prasad, on the other hand, had countered the claim saying the first conviction in the case was of a Hindu person.Referring to Khalid’s speech where he mentioned the visit of US President Donald Trump, the prosecutor argued that Khalid sought to create an environment that was aimed for the international media.Khalid was also stated to have chosen his words while using terms such as “Tiranga” or tricolour and “Constitution,” only to avoid the rigmarole of being booked again. According to the prosecutor, he had been booked in 2016 and was careful this time.
