No Evidence Of Any Speech, Mere Presence At A Meeting Not Culpable: Gulfisha Fatima To High Court In Delhi Riots UAPA Case

Gulfisha Fatima, accused in the case alleging larger conspiracy in 2020 North-East Delhi riots, told the Delhi High Court on Friday that there is no evidence to show that she gave any speech or used chilly powder or encouraged women to collect the same, as alleged by the Delhi Police. A special bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was hearing Gulfisha’s appeal against a trial court order denying her bail in FIR 59/2020 registered by Delhi Police’s crime branch. Her counsel also submitted before the court that there was no recovery from Gulfisha regarding any material. The court was informed that the police recorded statement of only one witness at the time when Gulfisha was arrested. The counsel however added that the said statement is generic in nature and is not specific to any incident.It was submitted that the statement of the said witnesses was recorded in order to fit the “emerging narrative of the prosecution.”The counsel further submitted that the prosecution recorded the statement of another protected witness on September 15, 2020 which “sought to expand Gulfisha’s role” and “take her outside of the jurisdiction of Seelampur and Jafrabad” where she was present and to say that she was also part of Maujpur area where some violence happened during the riots. “Whatever happened in Maujpur, an FIR was registered. I am not an accused or named in the FIR. In Jafrabad, it's my case that i was there and part of the sit in protest which happened under metro station. 2 FIRs were registered,” the counsel said. Submitting that Gulfisha will complete three years in custody in April, the counsel stated that her presence at the two meetings, as alleged by the prosecution, is mere presence which cannot lead to a conclusion that she had any connection with the accused persons.“In the meeting addressed by Umar Khalid, all that is said is that I was present. It is not alleged that i said something in addition to what he said. About the secret meeting at Chandbagh, it was also attended by everybody,” the counsel said. He added: “This is a case where two meetings are far from secret. Anybody who wanted to attend, attends. Many protected witnesses did too. Given that everything is in open, it can't be assumed that because I am not saying anything, I'm subscribing to what is said…..Mere presence at a meeting is not a culpable circumstance.”The court has now listed the matter for hearing on Monday for submissions by the prosecution. 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.Those who were charge-sheeted include Former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Salim Malik and Athar Khan.A supplementary charge-sheet was thereafter filed in the case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State

No Evidence Of Any Speech, Mere Presence At A Meeting Not Culpable: Gulfisha Fatima To High Court In Delhi Riots UAPA Case

Nupur Thapliyal