Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday, April 22, 2024 denied bail for Salim Malik for his involvement in the northeast Delhi Riots of 2020. The court noted that messages across different WhatsApp groups showed Malik's involvement as a co-conspirator. Malik had contested the Trial Court's decision to deny his bail plea before the high court.

The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain held, “In the present case, there is enough material on record which clearly indicates that the appellant herein was a co-conspirator and has committed the offence for which he has been charge-sheeted”. 

Salime Malik represented by Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid asserted that he was falsely implicated, not part of any incriminating communication groups, and his actions did not constitute terrorism. Sr Adv Khurshid highlighted procedural irregularities and lack of substantial evidence linking Malik to the alleged offences. 

However, the prosecution represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad noted that a conspiracy involving Malik and others led to the riots, citing witness statements and meetings allegedly attended by Malik. He argued that various witness statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC implicated Malik as a conspirator in the alleged incident. The Trial Court, based on the evidence presented, appropriately dismissed Malik's bail application, which, according to the prosecutor, requires no intervention from this court, APP contended.

Malik's argument was that the Trial Court overlooked crucial aspects of the case including the fact that he was not available at the location of the incident. Sr Adv Khurshid further submitted that Malik being a proficient cook, was merely assigned to oversee the kitchen backstage and was not involved in inciting protestors, which could not invoke penal provisions. He further rejected the contention that Malik had any political affiliations with any student union or organization based in JNU, Jamia, or Pinjra Tod, except for Chand Bagh.

The court noted that the main issue was: Whether the role attributed to him in the present FIR case brings him within the ambit of the expression ‘prima-facie true’.

Court held that the disturbances, occurring in the capital city of Delhi in 2020, stemmed from a deeply entrenched plot, wherein Malik played a role as a co-conspirator. Those behind the planning and execution of these disturbances had gleaned lessons from similar events in December 2019, albeit on a smaller scale, it noted. 

Furthermore, the bench observed that they aimed to escalate protests into roadblocks (chakka jam) and, once a sizable crowd was mobilized, to incite them against law enforcement and others. To mask their intentions, protest sites were given names reflecting secular or Hindu identities. The conspiracy involved moving from protest sites to predetermined locations, blocking main roads and highways, and inciting communal violence, including attacks on police and property using various weapons and tactics. Prosecution evidence, including witness testimonies and electronic communication such as WhatsApp chats, clearly implicated Malik as a co-conspirator.

The court reiterated, “Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) give constitutional right to all citizens freedom of speech and expression which includes carrying out public demonstration also but public demonstration when becomes violent and damages the public and private properties and harm lives of people it goes beyond fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and becomes an offence punishable under law. Thus, though the citizen of this country has a right to protest but it has to be in a peaceful manner and without resorting to violence”. 

Case Title: Salim Malik@ Munna v. State NCT of Delhi