The Delhi High Court Tuesday rejected the bail plea filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case..The order running into 52 pages was passed by a bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar. .The bench rejected Khalid's bail plea after noting that the allegations against Khalid were “prima facie true” and hence, the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of Unlawlful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) applies squarely with regard to the consideration of grant of bail.The bench relied on technical evidence as well as witness statements while rejecting the bail plea.Below are some considerations which the bench took into account while rejecting Khalid's petition..WhatsApp groups.The Court noted that Khalid was part of several WhatsApp groups which were formed for the purpose of coordinating protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). "Admittedly, a WhatsApp group of Muslim Students of JNU was formed with Sharjeel Imam being its main member in the night of 5/6.12.2019, i.e just 1-2 days after the said passing of the Bill (CAA bill). The appellant was also the member of the said group. Witness has stated that Muslim students of JNU was formed and Tahira Daud was added with the main purpose of coordinating in the protest and chakka jam in Delhi and other parts of India and to take participation in such protest, pursuant to which Sharjeel Imam started distributing pamphlets in Masjids against CAA/NRC," the Court noted.It further observed that a Whatsapp group “CAB TEAM” was formed consequently on December 8, 2019, whose members included Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Yogender Yadav, Nadeem Khan, Khalid Saifi."Admittedly, there exist a string of commonality which runs amongst all the co-accused. It is admitted position that both the appellant and Imam are members of the same WhatsApp group," the Court said..Call Data Records.Both Khalid and the State sought to rely on call data records (CDR).The State highlighted the flurry of calls Khalid had received after the riots.Khalid in turn sought to rely on CDR to show that he and the co-accused were not present at the same spot at the same time.The Court noted Khalid's submissions as follows:"The Ld. Sr. Counsel has also relied on CDR analysis for 10.12.2019 to show that the appellant was not present at Jantar Mantar on that day at any point of time and similarly CDR analysis for 23.12.2019 has been put forth to show that the appellant was present in Shaheen Bagh at 19:14 hours on that date, whereas co-accused Khalid Saifi and Meera Haider were not present in Shaheen Bagh on that date. CDR analysis of 08.01.2020 has also been sought to be argued to show that the appellant, Khalid and Tahir Hussain were not present in Shaheen Bagh at the same time at any point of time at the PFI office at Shaheen Bagh, whereat the Appellant has been alleged to have attended with regard to funding for acid, firearms etc. for engineering of riots in parts of North-East Delhi." However, the Court said that the CDR analysis are a matter of evidence which can be seen at the time of trial and its veracity can be verified only after cross-examination."This court could very well examine this CDR analysis on a prima-facie basis, provided the accusation of the appellant was limited to the aforesaid facts only, which is not the case herein. Admittedly the accusation are much beyond the said dates and meetings," the Court opined. At the same time, the Court said that CDR analysis depicted that there had been a flurry of calls that happened post riots amongst the appellant (Khalid) and other co-accused..Reference to US President Donald Trump's visit.The State alleged that the appellant had made provocative speeches at different locations and made an appeal to people to come out and block the streets, during the visit of US President Donald Trump, so as to publicize, at an international level, that minorities were being targeted and discriminated against in India.The Court accepted this argument."The fact that there is no denial that on February 17, 2020 the appellant delivered a speech at Amrawati, Maharashtra referring to the visit of Mr. Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, which according to the prosecution heralded the riots of North-East Delhi. The manner in which the administration initially rejected permission for the appellant‟s speech and thereafter how the speech came to be delivered clandestinely on that very day is something which gives credibility to the accusation of the prosecution," the Court said..Aside from the above, the Court also placed extensive reliance on statements made by various protected witnesses and CCTV footage to conclude that Khalid was actively involved in the CAA protests which metamorphosed into riots and he had participated in conspiratorial meetings which prima facie orchestrated the riots."The cumulative statement of the protected witnesses indicates the presence and active involvement of the appellant in the protests, engineered against the CAA/NRC. Admittedly these protests metamorphosed into violent riots in February 2020, which began by firstly choking public roads, then violently and designedly attacking policemen and random members of the public, whereat firearms, acid bottles, stones etc. were used, resulting in the admitted and sad loss of 53 precious lives and the destruction of property worth several crores. These protests and riots prima-facie seem to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings held from December, 2019 till February, 2020," the Court said..[Read Judgment]
The Delhi High Court Tuesday rejected the bail plea filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case..The order running into 52 pages was passed by a bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar. .The bench rejected Khalid's bail plea after noting that the allegations against Khalid were “prima facie true” and hence, the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of Unlawlful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) applies squarely with regard to the consideration of grant of bail.The bench relied on technical evidence as well as witness statements while rejecting the bail plea.Below are some considerations which the bench took into account while rejecting Khalid's petition..WhatsApp groups.The Court noted that Khalid was part of several WhatsApp groups which were formed for the purpose of coordinating protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). "Admittedly, a WhatsApp group of Muslim Students of JNU was formed with Sharjeel Imam being its main member in the night of 5/6.12.2019, i.e just 1-2 days after the said passing of the Bill (CAA bill). The appellant was also the member of the said group. Witness has stated that Muslim students of JNU was formed and Tahira Daud was added with the main purpose of coordinating in the protest and chakka jam in Delhi and other parts of India and to take participation in such protest, pursuant to which Sharjeel Imam started distributing pamphlets in Masjids against CAA/NRC," the Court noted.It further observed that a Whatsapp group “CAB TEAM” was formed consequently on December 8, 2019, whose members included Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Yogender Yadav, Nadeem Khan, Khalid Saifi."Admittedly, there exist a string of commonality which runs amongst all the co-accused. It is admitted position that both the appellant and Imam are members of the same WhatsApp group," the Court said..Call Data Records.Both Khalid and the State sought to rely on call data records (CDR).The State highlighted the flurry of calls Khalid had received after the riots.Khalid in turn sought to rely on CDR to show that he and the co-accused were not present at the same spot at the same time.The Court noted Khalid's submissions as follows:"The Ld. Sr. Counsel has also relied on CDR analysis for 10.12.2019 to show that the appellant was not present at Jantar Mantar on that day at any point of time and similarly CDR analysis for 23.12.2019 has been put forth to show that the appellant was present in Shaheen Bagh at 19:14 hours on that date, whereas co-accused Khalid Saifi and Meera Haider were not present in Shaheen Bagh on that date. CDR analysis of 08.01.2020 has also been sought to be argued to show that the appellant, Khalid and Tahir Hussain were not present in Shaheen Bagh at the same time at any point of time at the PFI office at Shaheen Bagh, whereat the Appellant has been alleged to have attended with regard to funding for acid, firearms etc. for engineering of riots in parts of North-East Delhi." However, the Court said that the CDR analysis are a matter of evidence which can be seen at the time of trial and its veracity can be verified only after cross-examination."This court could very well examine this CDR analysis on a prima-facie basis, provided the accusation of the appellant was limited to the aforesaid facts only, which is not the case herein. Admittedly the accusation are much beyond the said dates and meetings," the Court opined. At the same time, the Court said that CDR analysis depicted that there had been a flurry of calls that happened post riots amongst the appellant (Khalid) and other co-accused..Reference to US President Donald Trump's visit.The State alleged that the appellant had made provocative speeches at different locations and made an appeal to people to come out and block the streets, during the visit of US President Donald Trump, so as to publicize, at an international level, that minorities were being targeted and discriminated against in India.The Court accepted this argument."The fact that there is no denial that on February 17, 2020 the appellant delivered a speech at Amrawati, Maharashtra referring to the visit of Mr. Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, which according to the prosecution heralded the riots of North-East Delhi. The manner in which the administration initially rejected permission for the appellant‟s speech and thereafter how the speech came to be delivered clandestinely on that very day is something which gives credibility to the accusation of the prosecution," the Court said..Aside from the above, the Court also placed extensive reliance on statements made by various protected witnesses and CCTV footage to conclude that Khalid was actively involved in the CAA protests which metamorphosed into riots and he had participated in conspiratorial meetings which prima facie orchestrated the riots."The cumulative statement of the protected witnesses indicates the presence and active involvement of the appellant in the protests, engineered against the CAA/NRC. Admittedly these protests metamorphosed into violent riots in February 2020, which began by firstly choking public roads, then violently and designedly attacking policemen and random members of the public, whereat firearms, acid bottles, stones etc. were used, resulting in the admitted and sad loss of 53 precious lives and the destruction of property worth several crores. These protests and riots prima-facie seem to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings held from December, 2019 till February, 2020," the Court said..[Read Judgment]
