Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court's 10 Reasons For Denying Bail To Umar Khalid In UAPA Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday denied bail to activist Umar Khalid, who has been in custody since September 2020 in the larger conspiracy case of 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The FIR 59/2020 being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell invokes various charges under different provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 against the accused persons. A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar upheld the trial court order which had denied bail to Khalid on March 24, observing that it did not warrant any interference. Here are the 10 reasons given by Delhi High Court in its order denying bail to Umar Khalid:1. Umar Khalid's name finds 'Recurring Mention' in conspiracy behind Delhi RiotsIn its order running into 52 pages, the High Court observed that Umar Khalid's name finds a recurring mention from the beginning of the conspiracy behind the 2020 protests till the culmination of ensuing riots. The court also noted that Khalid was a member of WhatsApp groups like DPSG and Muslim students of JNU and had also participated in various meetings, wherein the alleged conspiracy to commit the riots took place. 2. Umar Khalid was part of "Conspiratorial Meetings" from December 2019 to February 2020The court also observed that Khalid was a part of various conspiratorial meetings that took place in the national capital from December 2019 to February 2020. The meetings were alleged to have taken place at Jantar Mantar, Jangpura Office, Shaheen Bagh, Seelampur, Jaffrabad and Indian Social Institute on various dates.These protests & riots prima-facie "seem to be orchestrated" at the conspiratorial meetings held from December, 2019 till February, 2020, the court said. 3. Protests Pre-meditated, 'Not a Typical Protest'The court was of the view that if the chargesheet and material collected during investigation is taken at face value, there was a premeditated conspiracy for causing disruptive chakka-jam and pre-planned protests at different sites in the national capital. It observed that the said premeditated plan was engineered to "escalate to confrontational chakka-jam and incitement to violence and culminate in riots in natural course on specific dates.""The protest planned was "not a typical protest" normal in political culture or democracy but one far more destructive and injurious, geared towards extremely grave consequences," the bench said.Furthermore, it was also observed that the attack on police personnel during the riots by "women protestors in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot" is the "epitome of a pre-mediated plan" and would prima facie be covered by the definition of 'terrorist act' under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act."Thus, as per the pre-meditated plan there was an intentional blocking of roads to cause inconvenience and disruption of the essential services to the life of community residing in North-East Delhi, creating thereby panic and an alarming sense of insecurity," the court said. 4. Allegations against Umar Khalid Prima Facie TrueThe bench further concluded that the allegations against Khalid were prima facie true, clarifying that the observation was only for the limited purpose of the bail. Khalid said the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies in the case. The court said that the term "prima facie" would mean that the accusation against the accused at first impression has to be true to invite the embargo of Section 43D (5). Furthermore, it said that the accusation must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a fact or the chain of facts constituting the alleged offence, unless rebutted or contradicted."In any case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded by the Court for opining that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is "prima facie true‟, is lighter than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for considering a discharge application or framing of charges in relation to offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967," the bench held.5. Umar Khalid's Amravati Speech and Krantikari SalamDuring the hearing of Khalid's bail appeal in May, Khalid was questioned by the judges for his Amravati speech of February 2020 and more particularly the words used in reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by him. He was particularly asked about the use of terms "inquilabli salam" (revolutionary salute) and "krantikari istiqbal" (revolutionary welcome) at the beginning of his speech, which he had used as a greeting to invite the spirit of revolution.His counsel had argued that revolution can be non-violent also, and submitted there was no immediate violence after his speech.Denying him bail, the court said it was not impressed by the argument as the call to revolution does not have to affect only the immediate gathering. It also observed that the revolution by itself isn't always bloodless and that...

Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court's 10 Reasons For Denying Bail To Umar Khalid In UAPA Case

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court's 10 Reasons For Denying Bail To Umar Khalid In UAPA Case

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers