Thursday, May 23, 2024
HomeNews ReportsAnti-Hindu Delhi Riots: Umar Khalid was in touch with Swara Bhaskar, Sushant Singh, Alt...

Anti-Hindu Delhi Riots: Umar Khalid was in touch with Swara Bhaskar, Sushant Singh, Alt News, Pooja Bhatt, set false narrative on social media and media, prosecution reads WhatsApp chats

The prosecution played an interview of Umar Khalid's father with The Wire's Arfa Kanum Sherwani to show how he was lying and creating a false narrative.

On 9th April, Delhi Karkardooma Court heard the prosecution’s arguments in Umar Khalid‘s bail matter. Umar Khalid is one of the accused in a larger conspiracy case in the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots 2020.

In his arguments, the prosecution cited a previous judgment where the court rejected Khalid’s bail to prove that a surface-level analysis of the evidence in the matter was already done while denying bail. In the judgment, it was said that Khalid is connected with many accused, and all evidence must be seen in totality.

Furthermore, the court noted in the previous judgment, “In a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the accused is present at the spot.” It is crucial, as Khalid’s lawyer argued he was not present at the scene when the riots broke out. Furthermore, the court had said, “On perusal of chargesheet and documents, the court had decided that the case against Umar Khalid is prima facie true.”

The prosecution also pointed out that Khalid’s bail plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court. He added that the defence’s argument presented in the court for the ongoing matter in the last hearing was already made in front of the Sessions and High Court, where bail pleas were denied.

In its judgment, the prosecution mentioned that the High Court had said, “We have examined material part of CS. Material available in totality has to be considered while granting or rejecting bail. The name of Umar Khalid finds repeated mention from the beginning of conspiracy till the end of the riots.” The prosecution added that the High Court had “fully agreed” with the Sessions Court’s decision to reject the bail plea and said the accusations appear to be prima facie valid.

Speaking on the defence’s argument that there were discrepancies in the chargesheet, the prosecution said the present case was for bail and not discharge. “It has to be rested at the time of cross-examination. The detailed examination of evidence of the merits of the case is not to be taken at the bail stage, which might negatively affect the trial,” the prosecution added.

Furthermore, the prosecution also discussed the portions of the previous judgment where CDR analysis was discussed. The prosecution said, “The CDR is a matter of evidence, and the veracity can be confirmed only during cross-examination—this is a matter of trial.”

The prosecution made the argument to point out that the Sessions and High Court had previously heard all of the defence arguments in this hearing. The arguments were evaluated, and bail was denied. Notably, the defence had argued that the High Court previously did not do a surface-level analysis of the evidence and hence asked the court to do that and grant bail. Countering his argument, the prosecution said that the study was done, and only after that was the bail denied by The High Court.

Furthermore, the prosecution replied to the allegations laid down by the defence in the argument about the “vicious media trial” against Umar Khalis. The prosecution said that the defence made an application before the court supported by an affidavit and claimed that SC was pleased to “dismiss SLP”.

The prosecution cited the Supreme Court’s order in the Natasha case, where the court specifically said that the judgement wouldn’t be treated as precedent. Here, the prosecution basically noted that the defence was not accurate when the Supreme Court said they were “pleased to dismiss SLP.”

The prosecution said, “The SC has made the embargo in interim direction clear and final.” The prosecution pointed out that parity cannot be sought based on bail for Natasha, Devangana, etc., as the SC said the order won’t be taken as a precedent.

The prosecution said, “3 people have been let out on bail. They have been let out by lifting the embargo. The HC has upheld the bar of 43D5. The courts have done a surface analysis of evidence in Umar Khalid’s case by both courts even before Vernon’s judgement. Therefore, the case remains unaffected by Vernon. Both cases have also said that 43D5 will remain. The others were given bail on an order lifting embargo of 43D5 – but also said it will NOT be treated as precedent. It means “it was not by law”.”

Pointing out the delay in the trial, the prosecution went through the list of adjournments sought by Umar Khalid himself. Out of 14 times, seven adjournments were sought by Khalid in the Supreme Court. The prosecution’s mention of the adjournments sought by Khalid shows that there was essentially a concerted effort to delay the trial so that they could later claim the delay as grounds for demanding bail. This particular point was raised by the prosecution in a hearing in 2023, and the trial said, “People on bail are trying to stall hearings so that those in jail can demand bail on the argument of delay.”

‘Umar Khalid has a habit of creating media and SM narrative’, said the prosecution

During the arguments, the prosecution pointed out that the cellphone data shows he was in the habit of creating media and SM narrative. The prosecution named several celebrities and activists who were in contact with Khalid. Notably, Khalid regularly sent them reports by The Wire, The Quint and other publications to set a narrative on social media and several of them were shared by the said celebrities and activists.

Conversation With Jignesh Mewani

The prosecution mentioned WhatsApp chants between Umar and Jignesh Mevani. He pointed out that Khalid sent Jignesh a link to a report by The Wire and requested that he share it on Twitter.

Conversation with Yogendra Yadav

The prosecution shared a conversation between Yogendra Yadav and Khalid. Yadav confirmed he had tweeted what Umar had asked to.

Conversation with Pooja Bhatt

The same message to propagate “#FreeDrKafeel” was forwarded to Pooja Bhatt.

Umar Khalid in conversation with Sushant Singh and Raghu Karand

Khalid shared an article by The Quint with Karand and Sushant, which Sushant then shared on Twitter.

Messages in the WA group ‘Hum Bharat Ke Log’

In the “Hum Bharat Ke Log” group, he requested to schedule protests after the Supreme Court hearing. He urged the members to issue an official statement on the arrest of “students of Jamia.” He also encouraged everyone to use specific hashtags so the posts could trend on social media.

Conversation With Rasika

In May 2020, he had a conversation with Rasika, and he said he needed help amplifying social media posts.

Umar Khalid in conversation with Sanjukta

Khalid shared a link with Sanjukta and asked her to push a report by The Quint where Zuckerberg called out Kapil Mishra.

Later, In June, Umar asked her to amply Quint’s report, to which she replied that it was already done and shared the link to the post.

Conversation with Swara Bhaskar

In the conversation about Kafeel Khan, Further, Khalid told Swara that Kolkata Park Circus Shaheen Bagh wanted her to join.

Conversation with Onir

He shared The Quint report with Onir, which he shared on Twitter.

Umar Khalid and Alt News’s Archit’s conversation

Khalid also contacted the Alt News team. Alt News asked if they could quote Umar Khalid, but Umar Khalid said he didn’t want to be quoted, so AltNews complied.

The prosecution also mentioned chats with Harjit Singh Bhatti and Shal Mali. Bhatti was assured that Khalid Saifi would be admitted to AIIMS. Furthermore, Anu Chenoy put Shal and Khalid in touch.

The prosecution pointed out how Khalid used the media to circulate his messages. He said, “Umar Khalid wrote the letter to the Delhi commissioner. He gave it to the media. The media published it, and then the articles were circulated internally. This is what is called procuring witnesses.”

The prosecution then played an interview of Khalid’s father with The Wire’s Arfa Sherwani to show how he was lying and creating a narrative. Arfa talks about how Umar is not getting bail and how his father’s petition has been withdrawn from the SC. Arfa asked his father why he didn’t get bail and if he still trusted the judiciary. Ilyas talked about 14 adjournments and how it felt when there were deliberate delays. Earlier, defence refrained from informing the court that Khalid’s father was ex-SIMI member.

Further hearing in the matter will occur on 10 April at 3 PM.

Ayodhra Ram Mandir special coverage by OpIndia

  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

OpIndia Staff
OpIndia Staffhttps://www.opindia.com
Staff reporter at OpIndia

Related Articles

Trending now

Recently Popular

- Advertisement -