New Delhi: It has been four years since the Delhi Police claimed that a “larger conspiracy” was behind the northeast Delhi riots and lodged 59 FIRs invoking the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The police claimed that the riots, which claimed 53 lives and left hundreds injured, were a “pre-planned conspiracy” that was “hatched by (former) JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) student Umar Khalid and his associates.”
Four years have passed since the FIR was filed on 6 March, 2020, but the case remains in limbo. The arguments on the charges have not been heard and the trial hasn’t begun.
The process of arguments on the charges starts only after the scrutiny and supply of documents is complete. Based on the arguments, the court decides whether to frame charges or discharge the accused. Once this stage is complete, the trial commences.
According to the data provided by the Delhi Police (as reported by ThePrint in Part 1 of the series), 21 accused have been arrested in the case and nine, including Pinjra Tod activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha, are on bail since 2021. Ishrat Jahan was granted bail in 2022.
Meanwhile, 12 people, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, and Tahir Hussain, are still in jail.
Earlier this month, Khalid withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court, which was listed before the bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, citing a “change in circumstances”.
Khalid’s lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said that they would try their “luck” in the trial court. In October 2022, the Delhi High Court upheld a trial court order that denied Khalid bail.
In 2020, the riots broke out on 23 February and raged till 25 February, turning the streets into a war zone. There were reports of rioting, arson, and corpses being found till 29 February.
In our part 5 of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots series, ThePrint spoke to several defense counsels and sources in the investigating agency to understand the status of this case and the reasons behind the delay in the case.
Also Read: Who killed Mehtab, Jakir, Ashfaq & Jameel — 4 yrs since Delhi riots, acquittals & unsolved murders
5 chargesheets, pleas for WhatsApp chats
So far, five chargesheets have been filed in the “larger conspiracy” case comprising more than 25,000 pages. The first chargesheet, which was over 17,000 pages long, was filed on 16 September, 2020.
On 21 September, 2020, additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat directed that the soft copies of the chargesheet be provided to all accused, including those in prison.
In October, the court was informed that pen drives with the copies were provided to the accused. The Delhi Police, however, informed the court that it would take 15 days to sanction funds for providing hard copies.
Meanwhile, the Delhi Police challenged the two orders (on soft and hard copies of chargesheet), saying that the directions were passed in a “mechanical manner”.
In March 2021, the court was informed that the accused had received the hard copies of the chargesheets.
In April last year, the sessions court completed the stage of supply of documents under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for all the accused in the case, except for Devangana Kalita. In August last year, the court completed this stage for Kalita as well.
After a chargesheet is filed by the investigating agency in the concerned court, the stage for the scrutiny of documents starts. Applications by the accused are filed under section 207 of the CrPC.
Section 207 of the CrPC provides for “supplying of the documents” — a copy of the police report and other documents that are referred to in the chargesheet or police report. The court decides if the prosecution shall provide the accused with the documents and directs the investigating agency based on its decision.
Explaining the procedure, a defense counsel of one of the accused told ThePrint, “There are some documents that might not be legible enough, so applications are moved to get them. Then there are some documents, chats, videos, statements, which are referred to in the police reports for which applications under 207 of the CrPC are moved.”
The counsel added: “The prosecution argues that these haven’t been relied upon in the chargesheet but these ‘unrelied’ documents might be exculpatory in nature and, hence, are important for the defense to argue and to ensure a fair and just trial.”
The Supreme Court has also ruled that the accused should be provided with all documents that can prove helpful for the accused, the defense counsel told ThePrint.
In August last year, ASJ Amitabh Rawat disposed of Kalita’s plea seeking chats of an internal police WhatsApp group and “selective extracts”, which allegedly were being used against the petitioner, as well as the CCTV footage of the riots.
The special public prosecutor submitted in court that “relevant chats” pertaining to the case have been supplied, but other chats of the police operation WhatsApp group haven’t been shared as they are “not relevant” and haven’t been “relied upon” in the chargesheet and documents submitted in court.
The public prosecutor also argued that these chats “may contain other sensitive information/privileged communication, cannot be disclosed”.
Regarding the CCTV footage, the public prosecutor said that the “relevant” footage has been supplied. Even ASJ Rawat noted that it wasn’t necessary to supply the entire footage of the riots as investigations in other cases were still ongoing.
Kalita then moved the Delhi High Court last year with two pleas challenging the trial court’s orders. The high court has, however, refused to stay the trial court’s proceedings.
Also read: Unending nightmares, bitterness — how Delhi riots changed a Muslim & a Hindu forever
Trial can’t commence on incomplete investigation
In September last year, the Karkardooma court was set to hear the arguments on charges against the accused through day-to-day hearing.
This was, however, adjourned after several of the accused — Tanha, Kalita, Narwal and Meeran Haider — moved applications in court seeking the status of the investigation by the Delhi Police to be placed on record and deferring arguments on charge till the investigation was complete.
Meanwhile, ASJ Rawat was transferred in December last year, and the matter is now being heard by ASJ Sameer Bajpayee.
According to sources in the Delhi Police, they have stated in the court that “investigation qua accused” is complete.
“We have said in court that the investigation concerning the arrested accused has been completed. We cannot say that the overall investigation has been completed because there are other suspects as well. It is very arbitrary. They just want to delay the trial and make it a ground for bail,” a Delhi Police source told ThePrint.
However, according to defense counsels, there was no mention of this in writing, nor is there any order mentioning that the investigation is complete.
“The prosecution will use this — that the investigation in the case is pending and produce a witness that we aren’t aware of. They may also bring about fresh allegations after hearing the defense’s arguments on a charge,” a defense counsel of another accused told ThePrint.
Last year, Haider had flagged concerns about police filing multiple chargesheets and pending investigation in court.
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Sharjeel Imam said, “The issue is whether or not the arguments on charge can be heard unless investigation is complete. It is the apprehension of the counsels for the accused that if the arguments on charge are heard, the prosecution would become aware about the loopholes in their story and might file a supplementary chargesheet filling up the said lacunae. Nothing in the law prevents the filing of a belated supplementary chargesheet at this stage too”.
“The apprehension is not unfounded because the state has, in another case, done the same,” Ibrahim added.
Citing an example, he said, “In the said case, where I represented one of the accused persons after the arguments on the charge were advanced by the counsel for the accused persons, the prosecution came up with a supplementary chargesheet plugging the deficiencies as pointed out by the counsels.”
According to another defense counsel too, “the trial cannot commence without the investigation being complete.”
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: A burnt shop & ‘blunder’: How Akram Malik was charged, then acquitted in a Delhi riots case