The Delhi High court Monday reserved its orders on the bail plea of Abdul Khalid Sadi, an accused in the larger conspiracy of northeast Delhi riots who has been booked under UAPA. Umar Khalid is also an accused in the case.
A special bench comprising justices Sidharth Mridul and Rajanish Bhatnagar reserved the order after hearing the arguments of senior advocate Rebecca John for Abdul Khalid Saifi alias Khalid Saifi and Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, who represented Delhi Police.
Rebecca John in her rebuttal argued that the evidence against the accused is not trustworthy "but dubious".
"To conclude, in whichever way you look at it, the evidence against Khalid Saifi is dubious," she submitted.
"If I want to say Khureji has the potential to be next Shaheen Bagh, is that an offence under UAPA? How crazy can we get? I know we live in crazy times but is that offence under UAPA?" she argued.
Khalid Saifi has challenged the trial court order denying him bail in the larger conspiracy of the Delhi riots of February 2020. The Karkardooma Court denied him bail.
On Thursday while concluding his argument opposing the bail plea of Abdul Saifi, the Special Public Prosecutor for Delhi Police had submitted in the Delhi High Court that the discharge of Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi in Khajuri Khas riot case does not mean the lack of evidence.
"Discharge in the said FIR 101/2020 does not take us to a logical end that there is no evidence against the accused persons," he said.
A Delhi Court hearing riots-related cases recently discharged both Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid in a riots case, observing that the allegations made against them relate to an umbrella conspiracy rather than conspiracy pertaining to the incident being probed in that case.
Justice Mridul had asked the SPP, "You mean the umbrella conspiracy encompasses the case in which they have been discharged?"
The SPP replied in the affirmative. He opposed the argument advanced by Rebecca John that there was no connection between Khalid Saifi and co-accused persons in the case.
The SSP contended that speeches made by Khalid Saifi were identical in nature to the speeches made by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. He is a resident of Khureji, but he gave speeches in Jamia.
He also submitted that Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid were members of WhatsApp groups United Against Hate (UAH) and DPSG, "attended all the meetings and were present everywhere".
It was argued on behalf of Khalid Saifi that there is no connection of the petitioner with the protest site of Chand Bagh where the first incident of violence occurred. This contention was opposed by Prasad and he said that merely because in Khureji violence did not erupt does not mean that he was not a part of the conspiracy.
During his concluding argument, the SPP said that there was ample evidence against the appellant and there was no infirmity in the order denying bail to him. He also cannot claim parity with Ishrat Jahan, who was not a part of any WhatsApp groups,the SPP said.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor