The Delhi Police on Friday told the Supreme Court that the six accused persons in the larger conspiracy case connected to Delhi riots of 2020 wanted a to effect a regime change in the country though riots like in Bangladesh and Nepal..Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that the accused persons have scant regard for the Constitution and they carried sticks, acid bottles, firearms when protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).The Court was hearing the bail pleas filed by accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan."Conspiracy to commit murder, terrorist attack made out. Large scale violence. The larger purpose was regime change. All those who went for the so called dharna carried sticks, acid bottles, firearms were used. The systematic plan was to have a regime change riot like it happened in Bangladesh or Nepal. This was the extent of the conspiracy. These were people who have scant regard to the Constitution. Since 43(d)(5) is covered this is not a case for bail," Raju contended.He also said that bail cannot be granted citing delay in trial since the delay has been due to the accused and not the prosecution. "I have already said why they can’t be granted bail on parity and delay. I can finish the trial in 2 years if they cooperate," he submitted.Raju concluded his arguments today.The accused persons will begin their rejoinder arguments on November 24. .BackgroundKhalid 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 have been in custody since 2020.In response to present petitions seeking bail, the Delhi Police has 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.During the hearing of the matter on October 31, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima told the Court that they did not make any calls for violence and were only exercising their right to peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) While Khalid told the Court that he was not even in Delhi when the riots took place, Imam said that he never made any calls for violence but only called for peaceful blockades."Petitioner was not even in Delhi when the riots took place. If I am not there, how can the riots be connected to it," Khalid's counsel said."I abhor violence. No calling out for violence at all. Only peaceful protests," Imam's lawyer submitted.Fatima too said that there was no evidence of any violence at the protests sites where she was present."The allegations against me is that I set up protest site. No act of violence at any of those sites. No documentary or oral evidence of anyone carrying chilli powder, acid etc at any of the sites where I was present," counsel for Fatima contended.When the matter was heard on November 3, accused Meeran Haider told the Court that he had specifically objected to having Sharjeel Imam at the protests sites during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act movement in 2020. .In response, Delhi Police has argued that the six accused cannot seek parity with the three other accused who were granted bail earlier by the Delhi High Court. On November 18, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta that the riots were pre-planned and not spontaneous. He added that speeches made by accused were with the intent to divide society on communal lines.On November 20, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju submitted that the delay in trial was attributable to the accused. He claimed that the entire protest by the accused persons against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was aimed at bringing about a change in regime."It was planned in a way that it will synchronise with the visit of Donald Trump so that it gets attention from international media. Intellectuals, when they become terrorists, are more dangerous than ground level terrorists. These intellectuals are the real brains. This has been demonstrated in what happened in Lal Qila. (Referring to recent blast near Red Fort in Delhi)," Raju submitted..Arguments todayAdditional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, highlighted the damage during Delhi riots."53 people killed, more than 530 injured, there was a lot of violence. Petrol bombs were used, stones were pelted, sticks, acid like chemicals were used. Stones were pelted on a small contingent of policemen," it was submitted. He also said that the trial court, in its order taking cognizance, rendered a prima facie finding that a UAPA offence has been committed. The cognizance order has not been challenged and that being the case, the accused would not be entitled to bail, he contended."There’s a chargesheet for Section 16 where punishment is for life. The order taking cognisance has not been challenged. An application of judicial mind ensures that an offence has been committed. If there is an application of judicial mind that an offence under UAPA act has been committed there is no question of granting bail. The accusation is prima facie true because cognisance has been taken. That order of cognisance has not been challenged," the ASG said.He reiterated the claim about plan to cut-off Assam from the rest of India."There was a conspiracy, for the purpose of not only inciting but for the purpose of violence. The conspiracy was to choke Assam out of the country," Raju said. "Where do you get that from the chargesheet?" the Court asked."I have given it in a pen drive. I’ll come back to it. In any case, knowing fully well what’s there in the chargesheet they have not made any submissions on merits. They themselves have voluntarily not gone into it," the ASG replied..On accused Meeran Haider, he said.."Meeran Haider has financed the riots with ₹2.86 lakhs. I am told that in ED’s money trail investigation they have got something more. I’m not relying on that part as of now."On Umar Khalid, the ASG submitted that he has a history of inciting violence."Khalid has a history of inciting violence as far as Kashmir goes. His mindset is that India should be broken into pieces. He has a famous speech. He had been arrested for that. He is one of the infamous originators of this ‘Bharat tere tukde tukde honge’ statement. He was the founder of the idea of Chakka jaam," the ASG claimed.Raju argued that he was the brainchild behind chakka jam."He explained the difference between chakka jaam and dharna to Imam and Asif. Umar told Sharjeel to start chakka jaam at Jamia. Meanwhile he said he will start Chakka jaam in other Muslim areas. Chakka jaam is violent, disruption of all essential services," Raju contended.The ASG also said that the principle of vicarious liability would apply in case of conspiracy."In a case of conspiracy, the role would sometimes take a background on section 10 of the evidence act. I have demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a conspiracy exists. Anything during the conspiracy period, if there is reasonable ground to believe there is conspiracy, principle of agency would apply. There would be vicarious liability," Raju submitted.Raju concluded his arguments. The counsel for the accused will make their rejoinder arguments starting Monday, November 24. .[Read Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
