Khurshid: direct evidence of conspiracy is not... ... Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha Fatima Bail : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Delhi Riots UAPA Case

Khurshid: direct evidence of conspiracy is not possible and therefore from events it has to be considered that it as happened. But to assume that there is agreement, and when you are looking for overt act, but since there is conspiracy, this is not needed. Therefore, to what extent has there been a conspiracy to take acts within its ambit?

As per the learned SPP, the money so received was to be used to aid riots and to support their fight against CAA/NRC, so much so that as per prosecution, Appellant Shifa-Ur-Rehman had also generated fake bills of expenses to adjust money used in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

In our view, the possibility of misuse of position by the Appellant Shifa-Ur-Rehman, being the President of AAJMI, cannot be ruled out at this stage. More so, when certain bills were allegedly recovered by the prosecution from the AAJMI‟s office. It is further alleged that the said organization had received a total amount of Rs. 7–8 lakhs in cash. The Appellants are stated to have been in charge of more than eight protest sites in Delhi NCR.

Worst allegation is 8 lakh, but no recovery or evidence. Saying that this money is to be looked after the protest site- protest is a part of democracy, i must submit that it is not illegal. There is no FIR against the allegation in Jamia. Of course, the allegation is that the police barged first and there was a reaction. Only allegation that he used 8 lakh but no proof.

See how parity is dismissed summarily by the High Court. [What Delhi HC said: On the plea of parity as raised by the Appellants, we are of the view that the position and role of the present Appellants in the alleged conspiracy is placed differently than the co-accused persons in the entire sequence of events, allegedly being one of the fund raisers in the conspiracy, that would warrant the benefit of parity to be extended to them]

Mylords may look at the short rebuttal note and I have put my address. I have also mentioned that I am not responsible for delay and I completed my arguments on charge on single day, we didn't delay on S. 207 CrPC, no previous background on antecedents. But I have admitted that I have sympathy for the protest movement. 22. Feb, there is some meeting but AAJMI members were there and my name is not there.

I have argued that two dimensions must be considered that mens rea but be there and causation must be there. I am simply saying I have said nothing but money is collected and used for what? Allegation is that it was used for the protestors to cover themselves because of the bad weather and I have given the history of protest that this is something we all have done.