Delhi's Karkardooma court is anticipated to deliver its decision tomorrow on the bail request of Umar Khalid in the larger conspiracy of the 2020 Delhi riots case.
Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, has been held in custody since September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He has sought regular bail, citing delay and parity with other accused individuals.
During the proceedings, Special Judge Sameer Bajpai reserved the order on May 13 after hearing arguments from both sides. The Delhi police's Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) opposed Khalid's plea, labelling it frivolous and baseless, and filed written submissions to that effect.
Khalid's counsel contended that no terror case had been established against him and that his name merely appeared in the charge sheet, which does not validate the accusations.
It is alleged by the Delhi police that Umar Khalid orchestrated protests at 23 locations in 2020, leading to riots. Khalid, after withdrawing his bail plea from the Supreme Court in February, approached the trial court seeking bail based on altered circumstances and parity with other accused individuals.
Senior advocate Tridip Pais, representing Khalid, challenged the submissions of the Delhi police, questioning whether sharing messages constituted criminal or terror activity. He argued that Khalid was merely presenting the "correct narrative" and countered the allegations of a media trial against his client.
The prosecution countered by presenting Khalid's WhatsApp chats, alleging that he habitually crafted media and social media narratives to influence bail hearings of other accused individuals. They cited various social media posts to support their argument.
In his rebuttal, Pais emphasised that mere meetings among accused individuals did not imply terrorism. He pointed out inconsistencies in witness statements and argued against the prosecution's reliance on third-party hearsay.
Pais also referred to Supreme Court judgments to support his arguments and underscored the need for substantive evidence to justify denying bail. He emphasised that there was no credible case of conspiracy or seizure of incriminating evidence from Khalid.
The defence counsel maintained that bail could not be denied based on speculative allegations and urged the court to scrutinise the evidence diligently. He reiterated Khalid's innocence, emphasising the absence of any concrete evidence linking him to terrorist activities.
The legal battle surrounding Umar Khalid's bail plea underscores the complexities of the case and the need for a thorough examination of the evidence before reaching a verdict.
Follow us
