New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday asked police to show the evidence against United Against Hate’ founder Khalid Saifi concerning his role in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 riots here to make out a case to deny him bail in the matter.
Dealing with Saifi’s plea seeking bail in the UAPA case pertaining to the conspiracy behind the riots, a bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait told the Delhi Police counsel to “point out the case” against him instead of going through the entire material in the matter like it was a trial.
“Point out the case — the clinching material against him. What is his role? What is his conduct? In what manner he conspired, how was he part of the conspiracy,” the bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain, asked.
“The court is not sitting for a story,” the bench remarked as it asked the counsel representing the Delhi Police to produce the case diary before it on the next hearing.
After going through an allegedly incriminatory speech delivered by Saifi, the court also asked the counsel to state “what was wrong” and how the “sovereignty and integrity of the country” was harmed by his conduct.
UAPA on Khalid Saifi
Khalid Saifi and several others have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi that left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Saifi filed the present plea seeking bail in 2022. His plea was earlier heard extensively by a division bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul, who was last year appointed the chief justice of the Manipur High Court.
Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad on Tuesday submitted that before the communal violence broke out in February 2020, several people, including the present accused, student activists Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwak and others, hatched a conspiracy to hold “disruptive chakka jams” and spread violence.
Prasad relied on messages exchanged on certain WhatsApp groups to hold the accused accountable and urged the court to also consider the allegedly provocative speeches delivered by co-accused Imam.
Hearing a speech not a crime: Court
The court remarked that hearing a speech was not a crime and asked the police to specifically state the conduct of Saifi to make out a case to deny him the relief of bail.
Senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Saifi, said no case was made out against him and told the court that the three accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Kalita and Narwal against whom the allegations are “graver” have already been granted bail by the high court.
She said Saifi, who admitted to running a protest site in Khajuri Khas, has been in custody for four years and charges have not been framed in the trial court and he was a victim of custodial torture.
“Allegations against the three who have been on bail for three years are far graver,” John said, adding that the allegations against Saifi are based on “patently false statements”.
The court listed the matter for further hearing next week.
The senior lawyer for Saifi argued before the earlier bench that the case against him was based on “frightening and alarming phrases” by the police and he could not be kept in indefinite incarceration.
Delhi Police earlier opposed Saifi’s bail plea
The Delhi Police has earlier opposed his bail plea, saying that its case against Saifi was “not a figment of imagination” and it was clear from the WhatsApp messages exchanged among the accused that protests against CAA and NRC had to be followed by chakka jam and then violence.
Police refuted Saifi’s claim that he had no connection with co-accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, saying that the same was not borne from the material on record and his discharge in another riots case “does not take us to a logical end to say that there was no evidence”.
On October 18, 2022, the court refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid in the same case, saying he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true.
Bail pleas of several other accused in the matter, including Sharjeel Imam, are pending in the high court.
