[DELHI RIOTS] Vociferous agitation in the guise of Citizen Amendment Bill meant to cause disaffection against India: Delhi Court

Rejecting the bail application by Delhi riots accused, Asif Iqbal Tanha, a Delhi Court has stated that the vociferous agitation in the guise of Citizen Amendment Bill coupled with other activities of violence was meant to cause or intended to cause disaffection against India. (Asif Iqbal Tanha vs State).The bail application was in connection with the case concerning the alleged conspiracy that led to the riots in the capital’s North-East area in February 2020..The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, Karkardooma. .It is Delhi Police claim that Tanha, a member of Student Islamic Organization, was instrumental in setting up and running Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) whose members conspired to cause rioting. .Anti-CAA protests, conspiracy to uproot elected government, chakka-jaam: Dissecting Delhi Police's 2,600+ page chargesheet on Delhi riots.Seeking bail post filing of the chargesheet, counsel for Tanha argued that there was nothing on record to show that Tanha indulged in any conduct amounting to any offence and that he was not even present at the time of the violence. .It was inter alia contended that there was no evidentiary basis to assert that Tanha was involved in a conspiracy with Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and to say that the accused persons were involved in attempting to overawe the Government of India, was nothing but a bald allegation..Blocking a road block does not attract UAPA, it was said. .Delhi Police, on the other hand, reiterated that the present case was one of "multilayered, multiorganizational and deep-rooted conspiracy" to cause riots in the city..It was stated that in the present case, the commission of "terrorist act" was made out alongwith conspiracy and funding and thus, no bail could be granted in view of the bar under Section 43 D UAPA. .Nothing except bald statements of witness: Delhi High Court grants bail to riots accused in UAPA case.Before considering the bail application on its merits, the Court stated in "unequivocal terms" that all citizens had the freedom to protest but the same was subject to reasonable restrictions..It was also said that a citizen was free to hold an opinion about any legislation which they construed as unfair in their understanding. .The Court then proceeded to analyse the relevant sections of UAPA and said, ...any action taken by an individual or association which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India is an unlawful activity. Thus, vociferous agitation in the guise of Citizen Amendment Bill coupled with other activities of violence would show it was meant to cause or intended to cause disaffection against India.. Adding that an act which threatens the unity and integrity of India is a terrorist act, the Court observed, ...as per the investigation, there was a premeditated conspiracy of the disruptive chakkajam and a preplanned protest at different planned sites in Delhi resulting in riots killing scores of people, injuring hundreds and causing destruction to the property. The entire conspiracy beginning from December 2019 of intentionally blocking roads to cause inconvenience and causing disrupting of the supplies of services, essential to the life of community of India resulting in violence with various means and then leading to February incident with the focus being targeted blocking of roads at mixed population areas and creating panic and attack on police personnel with facade of women protesters in front and leading to riots would be covered by the definition of terrorist act..Futher holding that the presence of each and every participant to the conspiracy at the site of riots was not a sine qua non, the Court held that the provisions of UAPA had been rightly invoked in the present case..In view of the above and the content of the chargesheet which included statements of several witnesses, the Court opined that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against Tanha were prima facie true..At the stage of bail, the statements of witnesses have to be taken at face value and their veracity would be tested at the time of cross-examination, the Court said..In view of the embargo created by Section 43D of UAPA, the bail plea was accordingly rejected. .Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Tanha. SPP Amit Prasad appeared for Delhi Police. .Read the Order: