Delhi Police, in opposition to Umar Khalid's bail plea, presented their case in court on Wednesday, citing WhatsApp chats as evidence that Khalid had a habit of influencing media and social media narratives to sway bail hearings.
The Special Public Prosecutor argued that Khalid, along with several others, utilised platforms like Twitter to influence the outcome of bail hearings. The court heard rebuttal arguments from Senior Advocate Tridip Pais, representing Khalid, with further proceedings scheduled for April 24.
The Special Public Prosecutor emphasised Khalid's alleged pattern of creating media narratives during bail hearings, as revealed by WhatsApp chats. Additionally, references were made to tweets by various individuals aimed at influencing public opinion on Khalid's bail hearings.
Despite assertions by Khalid's defence counsel that mere meetings do not imply terrorism, the prosecution argued that Khalid was actively involved in influencing media discourse regarding his case.
In his rebuttal, Senior Advocate Tridip Pais contended that the prosecution's arguments lacked substantial evidence to establish terrorist activity on Khalid's part. He criticised the reliance on witness statements and call detail records (CDRs) as insufficient grounds to deny bail. Pais highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's case and stressed the absence of tangible evidence linking Khalid to terrorist activities.
Furthermore, Pais questioned the prosecution's characterization of meetings as secretive and challenged the relevance of third-party hearsay in determining Khalid's involvement in criminal activities.
He underscored the necessity of prima facie evidence to justify denying bail and argued that the current allegations against Khalid lacked substance.
The defence counsel emphasised the need for a thorough examination of the case diary to ascertain the validity of the allegations against Khalid. He asserted that the absence of concrete evidence and seizures from Khalid undermined the prosecution's case. Pais reiterated Khalid's innocence and urged the court to grant bail, citing the lack of substantive evidence against his client.
In conclusion, the legal proceedings surrounding Umar Khalid's bail application underscore the complexities of the case and the divergent arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court's decision will hinge on the evaluation of evidence and the application of legal principles to determine Khalid's eligibility for bail.
Follow us
