The Delhi Police on Thursday opposed the bail plea of United Against Hate (UAH) founder Khalid Saifi in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots before the Delhi High Court, saying the prosecution’s case was “not a figment of imagination”. Is.” A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar was told that it was clear from the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the accused persons that the protests against the CAA and NRC should be followed by a ‘chakka jam’ and then violence.
Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad said, “The protest does not stay in the area of protest and has become a conspiracy to riot.”
“The case for prosecution is exactly as stated in the DPSG (Whatsapp group). It states that the first step is protest, followed by traffic jams and then violence. Whatever is mentioned in DPSG. This is not a figment of the imagination of the prosecution.”
Saifi and several others, including Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, were booked under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for “masterminding” the February 2020 riots has gone. North-East Delhi, in which 53 people were killed and over 700 were injured.
Violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
During his submissions, Prasad refuted Saifi’s claim that he had no links with co-accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, adding that the material on record was not borne out.
He added that while both Saifi and Khalid are “omnipresent” during the plot, Imam visited a protest led by Saifi at Khajuri Khas and delivered speeches there.
“There are clear messages that Khajuri Khas has the potential to become Shaheen Bagh and Shaheen Bagh, we have seen, is not organic. It was masterminded by Sharjeel Imam,” submitted Prasad.
It was also argued that the speeches given by Saifi were similar to those given by Khalid and Imam and to say that there is no speech is “a misrepresentation of fact.” The special public prosecutor further said that Saifi’s discharge in another riot case “does not take us to its logical end to say that there was no evidence”. He said that the case of Saifi and Khalid was closed on the ground that they were facing prosecution in the present case.
“The famous order regarding discharge…was a matter of considerable controversy to say that this is the kind of trial he is facing. As far as Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid are concerned…the reason for their discharge is not because of lack of evidence, but because they are being tried in this case.
He also argued that Saifi cannot be granted bail merely because relief has been granted to Ishrat Jahan, another accused in the case or she was allegedly a victim of custodial violence.
“If they still have any grievance (after NHRC closed Saifi’s case on allegations of custodial violence), all remedies are available to them. They choose not to, but move (they choose) after more than a year through bail proceedings. Will this kind of controversy get bail?” Prasad asked.
He defended the trial court’s order denying bail to Saifi on the ground that the judge had passed the order through WhatsApp chats between the accused, while objecting to the contention that the UAPA was not invoked then. Can be done when “common law” is enabled. handling the case.
Khalid Saifi, 42, represented by senior advocate Rebecca John, had earlier argued that the case against him was not based on evidence but on “sinister and dangerous phrasing” by the police and he cannot be jailed indefinitely Is.
Saifi is in custody since March 2020 in the present case.
He has argued that the Delhi Police was prejudiced against him, and made a case even when there was no prima facie evidence for either.
He has also said that UAH was created as a platform to campaign against hate politics, and that the WhatsApp chats, which are the basis of Delhi Police’s case against Saifi, “should be taken in their totality”. And his contribution to those groups is to be seen.
It has also been argued that Saifi’s role was to be “separated” from co-accused Umar Khalid, who was recently denied bail by the bench, and that he also had “no connection” with co-accused Sharjeel Imam. ” was.
The next hearing of the case will be on December 12.
read all latest india news Here