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

Singhvi: nowadays, whenever there is exculpatory things, it goes under evidence not relied.

On allegation that we provided chilli powers to women- there is nothing. very unfornature and serious.

On allegation I received funds from Tahir Hussain- protected witness Saturn's statement recorded 6 months later, not corroborated, no TIP, and this pertains to before 8 January and case is that I conspired after January- what is the connectivity?

further allegations-there are 6 allegations in counter but none argued- member of Pinja jod, member of DGSP, I am insider- But no allegation of actual violence. That I provided stones and red chilli power is not an allegation in FIR 59. I am supposed to be clubbed with Natasha and Kalita- I must have supposed to get bail alone on that.

Never been the prosecution case that it was for regime change- where have you alleged regime change as at the heart of conspiracy, pan-India conspiracy and regime change to cut Assam?

J Kumar: that was in reference to Sharjeel Imam

Singhvi: problem is, its conspiracy S. 120B. Mylords is right but you can't hoop in everyone. In the 2500 chargesheet, this great argument of regime change is not there, and nothing argued about this before trial court.

Person who sent message for regime change- a mythical person because he is neither accused or witness. I am not even part of DPSG but Natasha and Kalitha were there.

Legal pointers- 3 sets of judgments- one conspirator can be used against other but it can't be used when you allege regime change sitting in one part of the country and I am involved, and no delay-there is no delay by me. See FIR date, and 4 supplementary chargesheet coming in 2023, 2024 prosecution investigation is complete and 4 October, arguments commenced by tahir hussain, but adjournment sought, and then arguments advanced by these two. I completed in one month.

Please consider all these lectures on liberty, and everything that won't be served keeping her in jail.

Singhvi: as for seelampur, Devanga and Kalita were outsiders but its natural for me to be there because i am the resident. HC deals with it in one sentence- that its distinct- I am ascribed a lesser role.

On rebuttal- only remaining female accused, 5 were there 4 are out. I am in bail in two other FIRs and I satisfy the triple test.

Arguments made against us-gulfisha only mentioned twice in passing. his argument is general not via gulfisha- parity can't be considered, delay I caused, and not simple case of violence but regime change.

2.5.23 order of mylords said that either way, not deciding on facts, but parity is there if one can make out the case. I have given 11 points which make out my case. No specific submission made, only incidently-attended secret meeting in Seelampur [parity with Devangana and Kalita], where chilli power and acid was distributed [same allegation as them] but no recovery and seizure made. Its an open making that you upload it on social media.

second secret meeting in chandbagh where discussion are for inciting-but meeting included 100s including protected witnesses- allegations made by self-serving witnesses who also attended, no words or actions attributed to me.

codewords I used- Aj eid hai, nanital jana hai- I can understand where they are talking about bomb and you find it but what about using codewords?

On chakka jam- it used to be very prominent- when chaudhari charan singh's party was formed, he invented this. but how is this UAPA?

Note two FIRs- 48 and 50-both police station Jaffarabad- no evidence of violence, nothing individuated against me. Its legitimate protest.

Sr Adv Sibal: the video he is talking about, we are fighting a litigation on release of the video of violence. they say, they have not relied upon it.

Singhvi: on FIR 48, they have given video but not for FIR 50.

Singhvi: mylords may impose any safeguards. Its hightime mylords consider that liberty is secured through GPA in America and all. But I want to ask what public interest are you protecting by keeping her in jail?

Next, Javed Sheikh judgment- 2 judges. A third UAPA case, Jalel Khan- its not like UAPA is a no-go area. When trial is prolong, it is not open for prosecution to argue.

Right to speedy trial and personal liberty-Manish Sisodia case. Look at the finding of the High Court- hurried trial deterimental to both appellants and the State- this is misplaced consideration. I did rather not have this consideration from HC. Very infamous passage in ADM Jabalpur, happily overuled [is similar to this one].

Bail application has been pending from 2020-2022- 3 years, 2.9. 2022- dismissed. Listed 90 times, 25 non-availability of bench, 26 renotified- caricature of justice system. Two separate benches heard petition but then one transferred.

Just consider, I have cited 3 out of many cases were speedy trial is cited.

On parity- I am only lady in incarceration. they got bail in 2021. Mine is a much lesser case. It was upheld by SC in May 2023. This is the similarity of allegations- both members of Pinja Job, whatsapp Auraton ka Inquilad, both organised protest sites, attended secret meetings at Seelampur, attended Chandbagh meeting for chakka jam, - all these doesn't constitute UAPA offence but I will not go on that.

matter taken up.

Sr Adv Singhvi: I will finish quickly. Now, I am arguing a person called Gulfisha-32 years old.

My affirmative points-

1. I have been in jail for under 6 years.

2. 16.9.20 chargesheet filed, but as if its a procession and ritual of chargesheet- the supplementary chargesheets are filed continuously and in 2022, further supplementary chargesheet- total of 4 and one main chargesheet.

3. Even after 2023, item 11 seek each item, the delay is sad and astonishing- 11 is disposal of three persons Natasha, Kalita and Tanha, and item 12 I seek parity and HC keeps it for 3 months pending after reserving and item 13, judge is transferred, and item 14 new bench and item 15 second bench concludes but not reserved and mylords have reached March 2024 and August 2024, the case is released from that bench and item 17, trial court concludes that arguments on charge is complete and again we have the impugned judgment.

Now, submission in opening on delay- investigation qua me stayed for 4 years and half and charge is not yet framed and we are on delay. Petitioner completed on 2024 March, and 11 accused remaining. She can't be subjected to endless custody. Cited witnesses 939 and no likelihood of trial commencing. 43D(5) should be melted down.

In Najeeb, mylords said right to speedy trial. All this become note when we talk about 5 and half years. And I wonder, what will she do? A 32 year with this scrutiny.