Trial Against Umar Khalid & Others Will Progress In Natural Pace; Hurried Trial Will Affect Rights : Delhi High Court

While denying bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Delhi High Court observed that the trial need only progress naturally, as a “hurried trial” will be detrimental both to the accused and the State.

The accused have been incarcerated as undertrials for over five years for charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

“….the pace of the trial will progress naturally. A hurried trial would also be detrimental to the rights of both the Appellants and the State,” a division bench comprising Justice Shailender Kaur and Justice Navin Chawla said.

“The parties have informed this Court that the trial is currently at the stage of hearing arguments on the framing of charges, thus, it indicates that the case is progressing,” it added.

Regarding Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the Court observed that prima facie, their role in the entire conspiracy is “grave”, having delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to “instigate mass mobilization of members of the Muslim community.”

The Court said that prima facie, Imam and Khalid were the first ones to act after the CAB was passed, by creating WhatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets in the Muslim populated areas calling for protests and Chakka-Jaams, including the disruption of essential supplies.

The bench noted that the Delhi Police has made earnest efforts to unearth the alleged deep-rooted conspiracy, as is evident from the undisputed fact that the chargesheet runs into more than 3,000 pages, with an additional 30,000 pages of electronic evidence.

“The State carried out a detailed investigation, which led to the arrest of several individuals and the filing of four supplementary chargesheets, with multiple accused persons charge-sheeted, and as many as 58 witnesses, including protected witnesses, whose statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were also before the learned Magistrate,” the Court said.

It added: “Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, and specifically the submission of the learned Solicitor General and the learned SPP that the present is not a case of regular protest/riot matter, but rather a pre- meditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy to commit unlawful activities threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India, it becomes the arduous task of the Court to strike a balance between individual rights and the interests of the nation, as well as the safety and security of the general public at large. Therefore, these appeals do not succeed.”

Rejected the argument of parity, the Court said that although the co-accused persons- Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, were present in the alleged conspiratorial meetings and were allegedly members of the WhatsApp groups, however, their role was limited when juxtaposed with Imam and Khalid.

Further, the Bench observed that while the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which cannot be blatantly curtailed, the said right is not absolute as is subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed by the Constitution of India.

The Court said if the the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law-and-order situation in the country.

“Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the State Machinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of the Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Association,” the Court said.

“Moreso, the citizens have a fundamental right to voice their concerns against the legislative actions, which only fortifies the Democratic setup by indicating the participation of the citizens in governance. This right is crucial, as it enables the citizens to express their dissent, expose flaws in governance, and demand accountability from the State Authorities. However, such actions must be within the bounds of law,” it added.

On argument of delay in trial, the Court said that Constitutional Courts are well within their powers to grant bail to an undertrial who has suffered a long period of incarceration pending trial and are to secure the right to a speedy trial of an accused, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

However, it said that the grant of bail on the sole ground of long incarceration and delay in trial is not a universally applicable rule in all the cases.

It added that the discretion to grant or deny bail vests with the Constitutional Court, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each of the case.

Regarding accused Athar Khan, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Mohd. Saleem Khan, the Court said that prima facie, they have played their respective active role in the alleged conspiracy and were involved in the creation of protest sites such as Khureji, Chand Bagh, Karawal Nagar, Kardam Nagar, and Nizamuddin, among others.

“Further, the evidence on record, prima facie, suggests their presence in various meetings and especially on the intervening night of 23/24.02.2020, where there were alleged discussions to effect further violence against the Policemen and non-Muslims. Prima facie, it emerges that the Appellants-Athar Khan and Shadab Khan were in agreement to destroy or cover Government-installed- CCTV cameras so that they could operate fearlessly,” the Court said.

It added that each member of the alleged conspiracy, particularly the four accused, were prima facie assigned a specific role in furtherance of the conspiracy, till its execution.

Regarding Shifa ur Rehman and Meeran Haider, the Bench said that both of them were alleged to be a part of the JCC, and their meetings are stated to have taken place at the AAJMI Office.

It added that their CDR analysis indicated their connectivity with each other and with other co-accused, including Umar Khalid.

“Prima facie, facie, it appears that the Appellants were working closely together, and the allegation of funding is a serious factor which cannot be brushed aside at this stage,” it said.

Regarding Gulfish Fatima, the Court said that the WhatsApp groups that she allegedly created, of which one noticeably, revolve around coordination in protests and ensuring that as many women participate in the protests.

The Court observed that the fact of creation of the two groups cannot be seen in isolation and that the consideration should weigh in on broad probabilities as per the settled law.

“In our prima facie view, the role ascribed to the present Appellant, as reflected from the material on record, is distinct than that of the co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal in the alleged conspiracy,” it added.

Also Read: Breaking | Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam And 7 Others In UAPA Case

Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State and other connected matters

Click here to read order