Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

"Statements Of Witnesses Fabricated": Umar Khalid's Lawyer Concludes Submissions In Bail Hearing, Refers To Movie 'The Trial Of Chicago 7'

Nupur Thapliyal
9 Dec 2021 2:00 PM GMT
Statements Of Witnesses Fabricated: Umar Khalids Lawyer Concludes Submissions In Bail Hearing, Refers To Movie The Trial Of Chicago 7
x

Seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving charges under UAPA, student activist Umar Khalid's lawyer today argued before a Delhi Court that the statements recorded by the investigating agency in the matter were nothing but a fabrication, a tenuous material which will not stand the test of law. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais argued before Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh...

Seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving charges under UAPA, student activist Umar Khalid's lawyer today argued before a Delhi Court that the statements recorded by the investigating agency in the matter were nothing but a fabrication, a tenuous material which will not stand the test of law.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais argued before Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that the said statements of witnesses were grossly inconsistent with each other and that there was no physical evidence to support the same.

"I recently watched a movie called "The Trial of Chicago 7" where witnesses of the State had already planned to be the witnesses of the State," Pais argued at the outset.
He added "Even a 12 year old would know this is fabrication. They (prosecution) should be ashamed. Not even a shred of physical evidence. One doesn't need a cross examination to tell you that this one is a liar."

Pais began his submissions by referring to the sec. 161 CrPc statements recorded of a protected witness namely Helium. He was addressing the allegation against Umar Khalid that a protest was organized by Welfare Party of India at Jantar Mantar, wherein children and women were taken in buses and that Umar and his father were present at the protest.

"I'm not even admitting to that but advocacy that persons should protest against CAA, how is that an offence?" he continued.

Pais apprised the Court about the inconsistencies and improvements in the sec. 161 and 164 CrPC statements of the said witness. He said that the witness in his Sec. 161 CrPC statement said that approximately 250 Bangladeshi women were called and Umar Khalid and his father were present at the site.

"You wait for two months and say in sec. 164 statement that PFI was involved and Umar Khalid said that Bangladeshi should be sensitized. Because you find that by involving PFI, you will make the situation more muddy. In the second sec. 161 CrPC statement the it was on Umar Khalid's father instance that women were brought. This man must be a superman, he knows all 250 persons nationality. Does the police bother who brought them up? Nothing," Pais said.

He added:

"Has anything illegal happened? Not a shred of it. Then you put the sec. 164 CrPC 'tadka'. Then you feel 'ye bhi nahin chalega'. Then you bring in second sec. 161 CrPC statement."

Furthermore, Pais then referred to another statement of a protected witness namely Crypton and argued that even with the inconsistencies, the said statement did not lead to any criminality or unlawful act on the part of Umar Khalid.

"The attribution, something more is added in the statement. His number does not add to the previous person. He does not talk about PFI. Neither in sec. 161 nor in 164 he says that Umar Khalid incited any violence. Grossly inconsistent with the previous person who tried to paint me in his second sec. 161 CrPC statement," he argued.

Pais also questioned the act of not arresting other persons who were members of the WhatsApp group namely the Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC).

"You keep referring to a whole lot of people who oppose CAA and NRC. All of them are not an accused? What is the qualitative difference? Why are some people accused and others are not?," he said.
"You twist anything in anyway to ensure that those 14-15 people which you find problematic are behind bars. It's important from time to time to remind yourself your honour, that there are 750 FIRs. I am accused in one," he added.

Denying the allegations of the prosecution that there were "flurry of calls" between Umar Khalid and other members of the DPSG group, Pais said:

"After 1947 and 1984, this is the worst riot we have seen. People are calling each other. People always call each other in emergent situations. Did we not call each other yesterday on the death of CDS Bipin Rawat?"

"There is, according to the Prosecution, excessive number of calls. Do they tell you how many calls these people made since December when all this started? What is a flurry of calls here? Will the people not call each other when there are riots in Delhi?"

With the aforesaid, Pais concluded his submissions on behalf of Umar Khalid.

The matter will now be heard next on January 5 when Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad will commence submissions on behalf of the Prosecution.

Earlier, Pais had argued that the statements of 'cooked up witnesses' showed a pattern of 'false implication' in the chargesheet as well as FIR 59/2020.

He had also had argued that while the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act were secular, it is the chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police which is communal.

Previously, Pais had argued that the entire charge sheet in FIR 59/2020 is a fertile imagination of Delhi Police having no sense of consistency.

He had also argued that the charge-sheet read like a script of Amazon Prime show 'Family Man', having no evidence to support the allegations.

Pais had also argued that the charge sheet makes rhetorical allegations against Khalid, terming him the "veteran of sedition" without any factual basis. The hyperbolic allegations in the charge sheet "reads like a 9 PM new script of one of those shouting news channels", the lawyer argued.

Umar Khalid had also told the Court that the entire charge sheet is a fabrication and that the case against him is based on the video clips run by Republic TV and News 18 showing a truncated version of his speech.

The FIR against Khalid contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984. He is also charged of various offences mentioned under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In September last year, the main charge sheet was filed against Pinjara Tod members and JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.

Others who were charge-sheeted included former Congress Councilor Ishrat Jahan, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, suspended AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.

Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed in November against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to the alleged larger conspiracy in the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February.

Next Story