The Delhi High
Court on Tuesday reserved its order on the bail plea of four accused in the
case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the northeast Delhi riots
in 2020.
Shifa Ur Rehman,
Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima and Mohd Saleem Khan are accused in the
larger conspiracy of Delhi riots case registered under the stringent
anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Alumni
Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (AAJMI) President Shifa Ur Rehman, Abdul
Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan and student activist Gulfisha Fatima have sought
bail on the grounds of parity with Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif
Iqbal Tanha, who are already on bail granted by the Delhi High Court.
A division bench
of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain reserved the order after hearing
submissions of counsels for accused persons as well as Special Public
Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad.
While opposing
the bail pleas, SPP Amit Prasad argued that the accused can not claim parity
because the orders of the High Court granting bail to Natasha, Devangana and
Asif can't be treated as precedent, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
He also submitted
that if the accused persons seek parity with the accused persons, then the
court has to see parity with the role of Umar Khalid, whose bail was dismissed
by the High Court and this order has reached finality.
SPP Amit Prasad
also submitted that the bar under 43 (D) is also applicable in this case under
UAPA. He also said that there are protected witnesses who stated the role of
the accused persons behind the conspiracy that caused riots.
He said that
there were 58 protected witnesses and urged the court to order a day-to-day
hearing.
However, the
court rejected the submission and said that only one case should be heard on
priority.
While arguing for
Shifa Ur Rehman, senior advocate Salman Khurshid argued that there are no
allegations of terrorist activity. There are allegations of protest.
He argued that
any form of protest, chakka jaam, can not be called a terrorist activity under
UAPA and such a conclusion would go against the foundation of the jurisprudence
of liberty in the country.
Senior advocate
Sushil Bajaj appeared for Gulfisha Fatima and argued that her alleged role is
less serious than that of Natasha.
During the
hearing, the SPP informed the court that a supplementary charge may be filed as
certain FSL examinations are pending. The result can only be filed by way of a
supplementary charge sheet.
The trial court
has also filed a status of proceeding of the riots cases.
On February 29,
the High Court asked the Delhi Police to clarify whether the investigation into
the Delhi riot's larger Conspiracy 2020 case is complete or if they are going
to file more supplementary charge sheets.
The High Court
had raised the question while hearing the bail plea of Abdul Khalid Saifi,
founder of United Against Hate (UAH).
As of now, one
main charge and four supplementary charge sheets have been filed by Delhi
Police in this case.
An application
moved by Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita is pending before the trial court
against the commencement of arguments on charge without an investigation being
completed.
On February 6,
2024, the High Court asked Delhi Police to show material against Saifi to show
that he was involved in the violence. The high court had also rapped Delhi
Police for lengthy arguments.
The bench asked
the SPP to file a compilation defining the accused's role.
The High Court is
hearing the appeals related to the denial of bail to the accused booked under
UAPA. Delhi police booked Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain and other
accused in this case.