[Delhi Riots] Nothing On Merits, Wants To Create Perception By Referring To Web Series: Prosecution Opposes Umar Khalid's Bail Plea

Opposing Umar Khalid's bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the prosecution on Tuesday told a Delhi Court that Khalid wanted to create a perception by referring to web series 'Family Man' and movie 'Trial of Chicago 7' and had nothing to argue on merits of the case.Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad told Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat thus:"…he wants the application to be decided by a reference to a web series. He wants case to be equated as Family Man and Trial of Chicago 7. It's slightly unfortunate. Let us understand why he wants to equate with Family Man or Chicago 7. Because when you have nothing on merits, you want to go and create headlines.""You create a perception and it is for this reason if we do a google search of the dates of hearings, when law is argued that doesn't get covered. When family man argued then everything gets covered. The idea is to create a perception. You don't want to argue anything on law, but you want to argue on something which is relevant in media."Prasad further objected to the argument put forth by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais representing Umar Khalid to say that the Investigation Agency and Investigating Officer was communal. He said:"I do not appreciate when my learned friend argued that the investigation agency and the IO is communal. Investigation agency is not of a particular person, it's of a State. The first conviction in the riots case was that of a Hindu."Prasad submitted before the Court that at the stage of bail, the credibility of the witness cannot be seen or that analysis of the statements cannot be done. "You cannot say that for my surmises and my conjectures, sec. 161 statement cannot be relied upon. If a person remembers and makes a statement before Court and if on the spur of moment he makes some deviation, it cannot be questioned. It cannot be said that the witness is not credible," Prasad added. Prasad further emphasised that the matter pertained to a larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots, while adding that there can be various ways to look at it. "But to my mind it's nothing but a secret agreement for a number of people for pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public. In this case, there is a criminal conspiracy, a secrecy. A clear attempt to cover up after the crime has come to light," he argued. Prasad also addressed the argument made by Pais wherein he had argued that while being member of a whatsapp group cannot be a crime, Umar Khalid had merely sent a few messages and had no role to play in it's creation. "My learned friend said being part of group is crime? No it is not. Neither was a purchase of battery illegal in Nalini case. Things individually are not illegal. What is illegal is the outcome. We cannot analyse these statements or evaluate them or do appreciation of those evidences at this time. The north east Delhi riots were not spontaneous. This fact has also been appreciated by the High Court. It appreciated that it is a case which did not take place in spur of moment," Prasad argued. "He argued that he only sent 4 to 5 messages on DPSG group. On March 6 FIR was registered. This group was formed on December 29. There are lots of people who are added. There are lots of people who keep posting lots of messages throughout. But what is peculiar is there are 4 numbers which are removed by the admin the moment it appears that something is opening up. Out of these 4 numbers, 2 are of accused who are accused in the present case, Athar and Shadab. Those other 2 numbers, one has sent only one message throughout. If somebody who has not sent even a good morning or good evening message in throughout the life of DPSG group. What was the purpose of him being there? If he is there to give support to group, then he was definitely a part of it. If someone comes in group, and doesn't say anything, is he somebody whom one would want to remove when the threat of detection of crime happens and what is the effect of him being removed. This fact has to be considered by the Court. You don't have to say violence. You are an expert in your field, I'll demonstrate why we say so," he added. Referring to sec. 15 of the UAPA Act which defines a terrorist act, Prasad argued that while the riots were meticulously planned, there was destruction of properties, disruption of essential services, use of petrol bombs, lathis, stones etc and therefore meeting the criteria which is required under 15(1)(a)(i),(ii) and (iii) of the Act. He argued:"There was clearly a case of death and injuries to persons. There was loss and damage and destruction of properties. There was disruption of essential services, metro services, CBSE had to cancel and postpone 10th and 12th board exams. There were other disruptions which will come on record when we file supplementary chargesheet. There has been a damage of a total 21.93 crores, 61 claims have been settled, multiple claims have to be settled. Lethal and sharp edged weapons used, lathis, stones etc have ...

[Delhi Riots] Nothing On Merits, Wants To Create Perception By Referring To Web Series: Prosecution Opposes Umar Khalid's Bail Plea

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags