Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha Fatima Bail : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Delhi Riots UAPA Case

Dave: its a call for non-violence and if it turns non-violence, please don't turn it violent because it will be hijacked by political parties. I leave delhi and I am not in delhi, and till when I am arrested from hometown, I am not there.

J Kumar: what is that 16 Jan speech?

Dave: Aligarh speech. For this speech, Allahabad HC grants me bail and its not that it has been challenged. I am not saying that in Delhi, there will be riots. I am labouring and repeating, please eschewing the speeches from considering that something more. Aligarh seems to be the major one-FIR 22/2020, and one Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Delhi. So many prosecution for one speech. Now, conspiracy for riots.

Asansol- there is a legislation and he is entitled to make protest. Some of the speeches are unpalatable, I will not defend. I am frankly submitting that should not have done it, despite the instructions. Mylords be kindly consider that he be enlarged on bail as he was not physically present. Speech conspiratorial may not come and conspiracy has to be two or more and he is giving speech alone.

'chaar hafte' is that he has four weeks before the matter comes before the Court.

J Kumar: 22.1, you submit that it resulted in chakka jam and riots

Dave: its only chakka jam and not riots

Dave: [reads the allahabad HC's bail order] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, without referring to the exact allegation made against the applicant, it may be noted that on an undisputed basis neither the applicant called any one to bear arms nor any violence was incited as a result of the speech delivered by the applicant. The exact imputations made and the effect prompted by the applicant by words uttered or gestures made etc. may remain to be examined at the trial which is yet to commence . Inasmuch as the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and two months against a maximum punishment that he may suffer on conviction being three years, for that reason alone the applicant has become entitled to bail, at this stage, in the undisputed facts of this case.

Where I gave the speech, i am enlarged in bail. Please also consider that the bail which dismissed by bail by the trial court in FIR 22/2020, there are some observations- "although the application did not ask anyone to bear weapons, the speech incited people..."- this was the ground on which was denied after holding that there was no call to take weapons or kill anyone- i am being prosecuted not once, thrice but hexa and on speeches, I am on bail.

Refers to the order where bail is granted- High Court notes that the trial court got persuaded by the enormity of the allegations and proceeded to grant bail. It notes that nothing will restrict him to take relief under 436A CrPC.

There is something I have to show since much has been said about inciting violence. Sharjeel Imam under the tutelage of top conspirators Umar Khalid conspired to escalate the scale of riots. The conspiracy physically manifested itself in the second phase of Delhi riots, this would be established on the following Facebook post- refers to the post.

Counsel for Khalid: the petitioner has moved for interim bail for sister's wedding in 2.3 [Umar Khalid]. He had in the past moved such application and it was allowed.

Dave: I had mentioned about FIR 22 in which I was taken into custody and this January, I will come 6 years in custody. Whichever way you look at the matter, merit or otherwise. I am one of the persons who has been custody for the longest, not participated, no role in the riots. Persons who are physically present, committed riots, they have been enlarged on bail. I am on ground of the fact that my speech is being tried in a separate cases altogether. One important fact, the act that prosecution alleges fails foul of S.15 UAPA. What has to fall within S. 15 is the conspiracy to commit riots- the charge is not that speech is falling foul under s. 15.

That part of UAPA, which leads to commit riots or riots, S. 15 is not invoked by them. This is a peculiar FIR that conspiracy to commit offence is tried separately from committing the offence pursuant to conspiracy and I am not there in 750 FIRs. My speech is conspiratorial in nature and that conspiracy is s. 15 and if that goes, mine also goes. The prosecution for speech, I have been enlarged on bail- FIR 22/2020 in which I was in custody for 4.5 years. For same speech, I am prosecuted in Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh, Allahabad HC enlarged me on bail. Aligarh FIR 55/2020- 25 January, 2020.

Please have a look at the bail order [Sharjeel Imam's Speech Didn't Incite Violence, No Call To Bear Arms: Allahabad HC Grants Bail In Aligarh Sedition Case]-

Advocate Rajat Nair for Delhi Police.