On 21st March, Karkardooma Sessions Court in Delhi heard the bail plea of anti-Hindu Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid. Only the defence lawyer’s arguments were heard, and the matter has been listed for the next hearing on 3rd April.
During the hearing, one of the most important aspects that came to light was the chats between Khalid and his celebrity contacts, including Sushant Singh. This was the first time these chats came to light as part of a reply by the prosecution. Full details of the chats are yet to be revealed.
BIG.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
DEFENCE READS OUT CHAT SUBMITTED BY PROSECUTION BETWEEN UMAR KHALID AND SUSHANT SINGH.
Umar had sent a quint report to “expose” Delhi Police.
(These chats have emerged for the first time by the prosecutor)
The defence mentioned one of the chats between Khalid and Sushant, where Khalid shared a link to The Quint’s report to “expose” Delhi Police.
Defence ‘explained’ changed circumstances leading to the withdrawal of the bail plea from the Supreme Court
In his argument, the defence lawyer for Khalid claimed that the bail plea was withdrawn from the Supreme Court because ‘SLP filed against co-accused getting bail from the High Court’. The defence cited the bail granted to Devangana Katlita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha and argued that as Khalid’s SLP was pending and Umar was arguing before the High Court, no part of the bail order to Katlita and others could be cited.
Defence says that when Umar Khalid’s SLP was pending, Umar was arguing before the HC and no part of the bail order to Devangana and others could be cited.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
Defence reads out order which said the bail to Devangana and others would not be relied upon as precedent.
The defence further argued that the only position to evaluate was to determine whether Khalid was entitled to bail factually or not. He argued that only the interpretation of UAPA is barred from being treated as precedent; hence, Khalid was entitled to the plea of parity.
Notably, in his reply, the public prosecutor mentioned that there were attempts to set a narrative of Khalid on social media and in media. The defence argued against it and called it “pamphleteering”. However, the prosecution’s reply presented evidence that Khalid attempted to set a narrative in media and social media.
The written reply by the PP says that there were attempts to “set narrative”. The defence says that this is “pamphleteering”.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
(Defence is clearly not happy with the PP talking about how Umar Khalid set the “narrative.” I am sitting here wondering why it invoked such a response)
The defence also argued that Khalid should be given bail due to “prolonged incarceration” and claimed that Khalid should be allowed to the “parity” argument as Devangana, Nathasha, and Asif got bail.
“Time is also a changed circumstance”, the defence says. The defence is arguing that prolonged incarceration can also be argued as a “change in circumstance”.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
Proceeds to cite judgements to make his case
“The orders in Natasha, Devangana or Asif, or the order rejecting my bail, if bail is granted to me, would not be circumvented”, the defence says, citing other judgements. He also tried to draw a parallel between the Umar Khalid case and Vernon Gonsalves’s bail judgment. He said that the HC in Umar Khalid’s bail case interpreted Watalli’s judgement in a manner that made the court the mouthpiece of the prosecution.
Defence says that it is not sufficient that IO believes that the evidence points towards act of terror. The evidence has to prove that the accusations are “prima facie true”.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
“When your honour is looking at bail, the court will be looking at it more liberally than the charge”
Defence played ‘no evidence against Khalid’ card
In his argument, a defence lawyer said there was no evidence against Khalid. He also claimed Khalid was not present and did not cause death. He said, “Not a single witness refers to Umar Khalid having committed a terrorist act.”
“Not a single witness refers to Umar Khalid having committed a terrorist act” – Defence
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
According to the defence, attending a conference did not amount to terror. He admitted Khalid was present at a couple of meetings and added that the accusations against him were a “result of the fertile imagination of the IO”.
Defence starts talking about allegations in the main chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet against Umar Khalid.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
1. The defence says that there is no witness that Umar Khalid said anything in the MSJ/SOJ group. He was added to the group. He didn’t speak or give directions.…
Speaking on Khalid’s presence in certain groups, such as MSJ or SOJ, the defence claimed that he was added to those groups and did not talk or give directions. He further claimed the said group did not commit a terror act. He also denied the accusations that Khalid had instructed Imam to start a WA group on the intervening night of 4th and 5th Dec 2019.
The defence further argued that because Supreme Court had said and, hartal, rail roko etc, are legitimate forms of protest, Chakka Jan could not equate to terror. Dismissing a witness’s statement, the defence claimed that the witness said Khalid may have “instructed” to create violence was purely hearsay.
Defence reads a judgement of the SC saying bandh, hartal, rail roko etc are legitimate forms of protest. The defence uses this to argue that “chakka jam is equal to terror” is merely hyperbole not supported by the judgement of the Supreme Court.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
Umar Khalid’s lawyer threw all his associates under the bus to get him bail
Khalid’s lawyer threw Tanha under the bus and argued the allegations against him were more severe than Khalid’s. He said if the Vernon Test was applied, Khalid should get bail on the argument of parity.
The lawyer says that the charges against Asif Iqbal Tanha are far more severe. “I am not saying it’s a terror act, but it’s far more severe”, he says. He says that if the Vernon Test is applied, Umar Khalid should get bail at least on the argument of parity.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
The defence lawyer admitted Khalid was part of the DPSG group but claimed there was no material evidence against him. “I am yet to see a message by Umar which incites violence, gets excited by violence, etc,” he argued.
Defence is emphasizing on how minimum his involvement is in the planning of the protest and the groups mentioned in the chargesjeet.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
Now, the defence says that DPSG were there and “far more involved” the days on which there was violence. They are on bail. There, parity applies.
Defence claimed that three out of five messages by Khalid were location shares, and one was about the call he received from Delhi Police, where they advised him not to proceed with the protest. Defence emphasised that Khalid had “minimum” involvement in planning the demonstrations and the groups mentioned in the charge sheet. He then continued to argue that DPSG were there and far more involved on the days when there was violence.
Defence reads part of the chargesheet leading up to the creation of the group DPSG. “There is no material evidence”, the defence says. In this portion, it was mentioned how the accused wanted to give the protests a secular fabric to hide their real motives.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
Defence comes to the…
The defence claims everyone who spoke against Khalid has a ‘fertile imagination’
The defence claimed everyone, including police, investigating officers, lawyers, witnesses, people in the group, and some people who sent messages to the WA group, had a “fertile imagination”. All of them had named Khalid.
Speaking at the meeting at the Popular Front of India’s office for raising funds for the riots, the defence claimed that Khalid was not physically present at the Khajuri Khas violence. He pointed towards the Call Detail Record and claimed Khalid was not present at the location. Alluding the delay in naming Khalid in their statements, the defence questioned the authenticity of the statements given by Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi. The defence continued to throw every possible associate of Umar Khalid under the bus to get bail for him.
“About the meeting at the PFI office for funding of riots” – Defence talks about this meeting between Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid on the 8th of January.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) March 21, 2024
Defence further says Umar wasn’t physically present at the Khajuri Khas violence.
Defence says Umar’s CDR…
The prosecution did not get time to argue in the case as the judge asked for an adjournment. The matter will be next heard on 3rd April.
