Umar Khalid, the former student leader of JNU, finds himself entangled in a legal battle with his bail plea being heard in court. His counsel vehemently argued that there is no basis for a terror case against him, emphasising that his name being repeated in the charge sheet doesn't validate any wrongdoing.
The court session, presided over by Special Judge Sameer Bajpai, witnessed the impassioned arguments of senior advocate Tridip Pais, who represents Umar Khalid.
Pais stressed that mere repetition of Khalid's name doesn't transform falsehood into truth, criticising what he described as a malicious media trial against his client.
Khalid is implicated in the larger conspiracy case related to the Delhi riots under the stringent anti-terror law UAPA. The Delhi Police alleges that Khalid orchestrated pre-planned protests in 2020 across 23 sites, leading to the eruption of riots.
In response to the prosecution's contentions, Pais questioned whether sharing messages amounts to criminal or terrorist activity. He countered the prosecution's narrative, asserting that Khalid was merely advocating what he believed to be the 'correct narrative' through social media links.
The defence counsel also highlighted the pervasive media trial against Khalid, citing instances where news anchors relentlessly echoed allegations from the charge sheet.
He underscored the lack of substantive evidence supporting any terror-related charges against Khalid, urging the court to scrutinise the witness statements for inconsistencies.
Moreover, Pais drew parallels with other accused individuals who were granted bail by the High Court, arguing for parity in treatment. Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, among others, were cited as examples with similar roles in the events leading to the Delhi riots.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case underscores the importance of meticulous scrutiny of evidence and adherence to legal principles in ensuring justice for all parties involved.
Umar Khalid's bail plea remains a focal point in the ongoing legal saga, with the court scheduled to reconvene on May 7 for further deliberations.
Follow us
