New Delhi, Nov 18 (PTI) Strongly opposing the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others in the February 2020 riots in the city, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it was not something spontaneous but an “orchestrated, a pre-planned, and a well-designed” attack on the sovereignty of the nation.
Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Rehman were booked under the anti-terror law and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Delhi Police, told a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that there was an attempt to divide the society on communal lines and it was not merely an agitation against Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
Mehta argued that it is a “myth” that it was a spontaneous riot after the CAA/NRC protests and referred to a speech of Imam in which he allegedly said that Muslims, who are 30 per cent of the population, are not able to unite in an armed rebellion.
“First of all, that myth to be busted. This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well designed, well crafted, well orchestrated, pre-planned riot. That will emerge from the evidence collected…
“Speech after speech, statement after statement, there was attempt to divide the society on communal lines. It was not merely an agitation against some act.
“Sharjeel Imam says it’s his heartfelt wish for ‘chakka jaam’ for every city where Muslims reside. Not just in Delhi,” Mehta submitted.
The Solicitor General said a narrative is being built on social media that something very serious is going on with young people. However, the accused themselves are responsible for the delay in trial.
“We are ready to complete the trial in six months. For every charge filed, the accused will argue for five years. On facts, these accused do not deserve to be released, so they delay the trial to gain a ground for bail,” Mehta submitted.
He said photograph collected from the accused themselves, shows all of them are sitting together hatching the conspiracy.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, also appearing for Delhi Police, submitted the accused have sought parity with Natasha Narwal, Devyangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha, who got bail in the riots case in June 2021 after spending a year in jail.
According to Raju, the accused persons cannot seek parity with three other co-accused as the top court had clearly said that the bail order of the co-accused cannot be treated as a precedent.
The ASG submitted that if a person is accused under UAPA then bail is possible only if the conditions or rigours of Section 43D(5) is met.
Raju argued the Delhi High Court in May 2024 erroneously granted statutory bail to Imam under Section 436-A CrPC in connection with a 2020 communal riots case involving allegations of sedition and unlawful activities.
“Bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of a CrPC provision when the additional rigours of UAPA also applies to the case. Under Section 436-A, a person can be released from custody if he has spent more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence,” Raju said.
He contended there is no material change in circumstance in the case of Khalid that requires a court to relook its earlier rejection of his bail pleas.
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on November 20.
Seeking bail in the UAPA case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid had told the apex court that there is no evidence linking him to violence and denied conspiracy charges against him.
The Delhi High Court denied bail to nine people, including Khalid and Imam, saying “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens could not be allowed.
Besides Khalid and Imam, those who faced bail rejection are Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.
The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by a different high court bench on September 2.
The high court said the Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms, and such actions must be within the bounds of law.
While the high court said the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings was said to have been protected under Article 19(1)(a), and couldn’t be blatantly curtailed, it observed the right was “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable restrictions”.
“If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law and order situation in the country,” the bail rejection order said.
The accused, who have denied all the allegations against them, have been in jail since 2020 and had moved the high court after a trial court rejected their bail pleas. PTI PKS ZMN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.