Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the appeal filed by Umar Khalid challenging the lower court's order dismissing his bail application. The High Court denied bail to Khalid stating, "This court expresses the inescapable conclusion that allegations against the appellant are prima facie true".

A bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajinish Bhatnagar said, "The name of the appellant (Umar Khalid) finds recurring mention from the beginning of the conspiracy till the culmination of the ensuing riots".

Additionally, the court noted, "The cumulative statement of the protected witnesses indicates the presence and active involvement of the appellant (Umar Khalid) in the protests, engineered against the CAA/NRC. Admittedly these protests metamorphosed into violent riots in February 2020, which began by firstly choking public roads, then violently and designedly attacking policemen and random members of the public, whereat firearms, acid bottles, stones, etc. were used, resulting in the admitted and sad loss of 53 precious lives and the destruction of property worth several Crores".

The court rejected the contention that statements of protected witnesses are of questionable credibility and unreliable as the plan was to escalate the Jaffrabad protest site to the next level of Chakka Jam and then riots.

The present judgment has come in an appeal filed by Khalid challenging the lower court's order rejecting his bail application finding Khalid's role in the Delhi riots conspiracy.

The high court bench noted that "terrorism is an act done to disturb the even tempo of society and create a sense of fear in the mind of a section of society. Whereas, the argument of Khalid's counsel was that although there was a sense of insecurity instilled in public by his speeches but he had nothing to do with it and referred to the charge sheet to argue that there is no statement of any witnesses, which could be termed as inculpatory against him".

The bench said, "...different roles were ascribed to different people (accused) in carrying out the said conspiracy. Different protected witnesses have stated the role of the Appellant and other accused persons and about the open discussion on violence, riots, finance, and weapons".

Court also opined that "as per the charge sheet and the materials collated during the investigation if taken at face value, there appears to be a premeditated conspiracy for causing disruptive chakka-jam and preplanned protests at different planned sites in Delhi, which was engineered to escalate to confrontational chakka-jam and incitement to violence and culminate in riots in the natural course on specific dates".

"The protest planned was 'not a typical protest' normal in political culture or democracy but one far more destructive and injurious geared towards extremely grave consequences," the Court added.

The bench concluded that "the attack on police personnel by women protesters in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot is the epitome of such premeditated plan and as such the same would prima facie be covered by the definition of 'terrorist act'."

Court added that the "statements confirmed that conspiratorial meetings took place at Seelampur between Umar Khalid with Pinjra Tod members, and others, wherein it was decided to induce local women to start stockpiling knives, bottles, acids, stones, chilly powder for rioting".

"Court cannot turn its blind eye to other incriminating material against Umar Khalid in this case, clandestinely delivered speeches at Amravati & Maharashtra despite non-grant of permission by authorities, CCTV footages & flurry of calls after riots merit consideration," the high court bench said.

The High Court on September 9, had reserved its judgment on Khalid's appeal after the completion of the arguments put forth by both the parties.

Background:

On September 13, 2020, Umar Khalid was arrested in connection with communal clashes that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, after violence between Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 supporters, and its protesters became out of control, leaving many people dead and several injured.

While denying Khalid bail, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court found that Khalid's name is a "recurring mention" from the beginning of the conspiracy till the riots & that there are numerous statements of witnesses (recorded before the magistrate and before the police) highlighting "incriminating material" against the accused Umar Khalid.

Khalid challenged the said order before the Delhi High Court on the ground that there is no evidence linking him to the violence that erupted in Delhi during the riots.

Case Title: Umar Khalid Vs. State of NCT Delhi