Umar Khalid was part of WhatsApp groups on CAA protests, acts should be seen in totality: Why Delhi court refused bail

A Delhi court on Thursday declined bail to Umar Khalid, accused in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case in connection with the Delhi riots of February 2020..The bail order, a copy which is now available, has dealt with the submissions of the defence, opining why those will not suffice in the case.Below are some of the key highlights from the 61-page order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat:.The Court agreed with Umar Khalid’s counsel Senior Advocate Trideep Pais on some inconsistencies in statements of a few protected witnesses, but said a finding had to be given on a cumulative reading of statements of such witnesses and events shown in the chargesheet. In a conspiracy, various continuous acts are committed by different accused persons and one act could not be read in isolation. At times, if read by itself, a particular act or an activity may appear innocuous, but if it is a part of chain of events constituting a conspiracy, then all the events must be read together. Again agreeing with Pais it was noted that Khalid was part of the WhatsApp group MSJ (Muslim Students of Jamia) and DPSG (Delhi Protest Support Group) but hadn't sent many messages in these groups and they are not overtly provocative or incriminatory. The order, however, pointed out that he was part of such groups created for specific objects and his acts or presence throughout the period beginning from the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in December 2019 till the riots of February 2020 riots, had to be read in totality and not piecemeal. .He has connectivity with many accused persons.Umar Khalid Bail Order. On the argument that Khalid was in Delhi at the time of riots, the order said that in a case of a conspiracy, it is not necessary that every accused should be present at the spot. Khalid had also argued that his bent of mind could be discerned from his doctoral thesis on Welfare aspects of Adivasis of Jharkhand and other writings. However, according to the order, these arguments were not relevant. The Court countered it by stating if the bent of mind is to be assessed in this manner, then co-accused Sharjeel Imam has written thesis on riots but any thesis or research work, by itself, done by any accused cannot be a ground for assessing mens rea or bent of mind. A bail application has to be decided on facts presented in chargesheet. When the accusation against the accused Umar Khalid were found to be prima facie true, the embargoes created by Section 43D of UAPA and Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure would apply.