Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam has moved the Supreme Court seeking deletion of certain observations made by the Delhi High Court in its order denying bail to co-accused Umar Khalid in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Knocked on the door of the court.
In his petition filed before the apex court, Sharjeel Imam said, “There is no evidence on record to justify the impugned remarks.” , they are not an integral part of the impugned order.
The High Court had observed that the CDR analysis showed a flurry of calls between Khalid and other co-conspirators after the riots, indicating his active role.
“Of course, there exists a thread of similarity that runs between all the co-accused. It is an accepted position that both Khalid and Imam are members of the same WhatsApp group, and both had participated in the Jantar Mantar protests,” the High Court had said.
Challenging these remarks, Imam in his petition before the Supreme Court stated that these objectionable remarks were against the principles of natural justice. “The observations and observations in the impugned order have been made without explanation or opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and thus there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice,” he added.
“…the observations meet a fate not only in the bail application but also in the criminal trial by the nature of the observations and therefore infringe upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to a free and fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the plea contends. he said.
Rejecting the bail application filed by JNU student leader Umar Khalid in a larger conspiracy case related to the North-East Delhi riots 2020, the Delhi High Court on October 18 observed that the attacks by women symbolizing these “premeditated conspiracy” was. Police personnel who is covered under terrorist attack”.
“Roads were deliberately blocked to cause inconvenience and disruption of essential services to the community living in North-East Delhi, causing panic and a sense of insecurity. The attack on the police personnel by the women protestors followed by only other ordinary people and the area turning into a riot is indicative of such pre-arranged planning and thus would prima facie be covered by the definition of ‘terrorist’. Act’,” said a division bench of the high court headed by justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar.
The HC further held that the planned protest was “not a typical protest”, which is common in political culture or a democracy, but a more destructive and harmful one, leading to extremely serious consequences.
Commenting on Khalid’s role in the conspiracy of violence that took place in February 2020, the High Court observed, “The name of the appellant finds repeated mention from the inception of the conspiracy till the culmination of the riots. He is believed to be a member of the JNU Muslim students’ WhatsApp group. He attended various meetings at Jantar Mantar, Jangpura Office, Shaheen Bagh, Seelampur, Jaffrabad and Indian Social Institute on various dates. He was a member of the DPSG group. He mentioned the visit of the President of America India In his Amaravati speech.
read all latest india news Here