Riots 2020: SPP Cites Prima Facie Evidence to Oppose Shadab Ahmed’s Bail in Delhi HC

The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), Amit Prasad, on Thursday, 10 July, opposed bail for Shadab Ahmed, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, the SPP made his submission before a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur.

The SPP told the High Court that Shadab Ahmed was consistently present in key meetings where the alleged conspiracy was hatched. He added that, right after the FIR was filed in the instant case, group members deleted the chat and migrated to other platforms.

“The moment the FIR came into public domain, they started deleting chats and said, ‘We can reconvene on Signal,’” he submitted.

Finding prima facie evidence against him, the SPP added that charges have been framed against Ahmed.

While addressing concerns over the delay in trial, the SPP referred to the court’s previous orders and highlighted that the prosecution was ready to begin arguments. However, objections had been raised by counsel appearing for the accused persons.

He therefore submitted that the delay in trial proceedings could not be attributed either to the Delhi Police or the court, as it was the accused persons and their lawyers who were repeatedly deferring arguments under one pretext or another.

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Hariharan appearing for Shadab Ahmed argued that framing of charges cannot be a ground to deny bail.

During the last hearing, Shadab Ahmed contended that the agency had portrayed his involvement as though the conspiracy had been casually discussed at a local biryani stall.

Senior Advocate Hariharan, who appeared for Shadab Ahmed, sharply criticised the NIA’s interpretation of the statements attributed to his client. “The way the agency had presented the statements, it was as if we were eating biryani at some stall and they sat beside us while we were talking all about this and managed to hear it,” he remarked.

Emphasising the inherently clandestine nature of conspiracies, Senior Advocate Hariharan argued that such plots rarely unfolded through overt or public declarations. He submitted that the statements cited in the investigation report appeared to have been extracted from casual conversations, lacking both evidentiary value and contextual clarity.

These arguments were raised in a criminal appeal filed by several individuals accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the Northeast Delhi riots of February 2020.

Prosecution's Stand

The state, while opposing Ahmed’s bail in previous hearings, had highlighted the gravity of the case by referring to the death of Head Constable Ratan Lal and the serious injuries sustained by several police officers during the riots. It claimed that the planning had taken place during meetings on February 23, 2020, and that the accused had used coded language to coordinate their actions. The prosecution further alleged that Ahmed had been in communication with other co-accused and had deleted mobile data relevant to the key dates.

Ahmed has been accused in three FIRs. He has been granted bail in two cases, except the current one, i.e. one involving larger conspiracy in Delhi Riots.

Larger Conspiracy Case

Delhi Police's Special Cell registered FIR 59 of 2020 against eighteen accused in the case, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, and others.

The accused persons were booked under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), as well as various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity, rioting, and murder.

The case stemmed from the violence that broke out in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which followed widespread clashes between the supporters and opponents of the Act. Several incidents of stone-pelting, arson, and violent protests were reported, which had left nearly 53 dead and injured thousands.

It is the prosecution's case that the violence that engulfed the streets of Delhi was not spontaneous in nature but a pre-planned act intended to destabilise the Indian government during an already sensitive political time.

Update in Connected Matter

A day earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made arguments opposing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, he contended that bail cannot be granted to those who seek to “bleed and break” the country.

“This is not a case of bail, just bail like in any other ordinary matter. We are dealing with well-organised and orchestrated riots that began in the capital, on a particular day, at a particular time,” he submitted.

He specifically argued that while prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail in general, it cannot apply in cases where the accused is “hell-bent on bleeding the nation and breaking it into two parts.”

The top law office also informed the court that the investigation carried out in the present cases has been one of the finest he had ever seen. "To satisfy the conscience of the court, there are 58 statements recorded under section 164 (of the CrPc)," he told Court.

Notably, SG Mehta's appearance in the matter follows a decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to bring him on board to assist in presenting the prosecution’s case before the Delhi High Court.

Background

On October 18, 2022, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Umar Khalid challenging the lower court's order rejecting his bail application, holding that the allegations against him were prima facie true.

The High Court denied bail to Khalid, stating, "This court expresses the inescapable conclusion that allegations against the appellant are prima facie true."

Sharjeel Imam's bail plea challenged a February 11, 2022, order passed by the Karkardooma court, which held that his speeches intended to create public disorder and incitement to violence, and also appeared to challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.

The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an Article 32 petition, noting that Imam could not have moved such a petition before the top court while his bail plea remained pending before the Delhi High Court.

The accused challenged the trial court orders before the High Court, which denied them bail, citing the embargo under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Parallelly, proceedings are ongoing before the trial court. The case is currently at the stage of arguments on charge.The prosecution has alleged that the accused individuals, namely Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, were the kingpins behind the violence that shook Delhi. On the other hand, the accused deny the allegations, maintaining that they were exercising their democratic right to dissent.

Case Title: SHADAB AHMED v/s STATE OF NCT OF DELHI