Delhi High Court finds fault with Umar Khalid’s choice of words for Prime Minister

Umar Khalid

New Delhi : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked whether its proper to use the word ‘Jumla’ against the Prime Minister, during the hearing of the appeal of JNU scholar-activist Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots’ larger conspiracy case.

The Court asked questions during the hearing of an appeal moved by Umar Khalid challenging the trial court order refusing bail in a larger conspiracy case related to North East Delhi Violence.

The court during the hearing also asked when was this speech of Umar Khalid uploaded to social media? “It’s a very carefully crafted speech. Umar Khalid is an intelligent man but the question arises that, is it constitutes a conspiracy to commit the offence,” asked the court.

Appearing for Khalid, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais in defence submitted that the common intention was only a peaceful protest not any type of instigation or incitement for any violence. The galvanising of troop idea would have come if this speech was even shared on various WhatsApp groups that are alleged to be active. But it was not done, the lawyer argued.

After hearing the lengthy arguments in the matter, the bench of Justin Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar on Wednesday said, the bench will continue to hear the matter on Thursday.

Earlier, on Tuesday Delhi Police filed its reply copy in the Delhi High Court opposing Umar Khalid’s appeal challenging the trial court order refusing bail. Reply said that the trial court rightly dismissed the bail application of the Appellant (Umar Khalid) by a well-reasoned order dealing with each and every speculative argument raised by the Appellant.

The Court had also observed that the accused was part of such WhatsApp groups created for specific objects and his acts or presence throughout the period beginning from the passing of the CAB Bill in December 2019 till the February 2020 riots, has to be read in totality and not piecemeal. He is connected with many accused persons.

The Court had rejected the contention of defence counsel that the accused was not present in Delhi during the time of the riots. In this regard, the Court said that in a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary that every accused should be present on the spot.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad had opposed the bail. He had argued that the Delhi riots were a large scale and deep-rooted conspiracy hatched after the passing of the resolution by the Cabinet Committee to present CAB in both houses of Parliaments on 4 December 2019.

SPP had also argued that in this entire conspiracy, there were various organisations like Pinjra Tod, AAZMI, SIO, SFI, etc. through individuals which participated. There was the centrality of JCC in the eco-system.

Amit Prasad had argued Umar Khalid participated in the conspiracy. He had also argued that the case under sections is made out against the accused persons. There is sufficient material on record to establish that the accusation against the accused Umar Khalid is prima facie true and hence bail application of the accused may be dismissed.

This case pertains to large scale violence in Northeast Delhi in which 53 people had lost their lives and hundreds were injured.— IANS


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here