Umar Khalid & Others' Bail Hearing In Delhi Riots UAPA Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court

Sr Adv Siddharth Agarwal, for Haider: mylords may start with impugned order. What HC did was to category us in different category in what HC felt was inter-se parity.

Within us, HC recognise some inter-se parity. initially, first set of two people- Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid [reads what HC said about them]

What is common to us is the length of incarceration but what is distinct is the allegations.

Khurshid: para 4 referred.

He had the occasion of interim bail on 25.11.23, and 11.11.24. There is no other case. If anything would have happened for violence, he would have participated when Jamia..we must learn lesson for Chicago 7. There are protest that happened in South Asia and we don't want to go there because each has its own favour but we have been told when there is unjust law, we must disobey the law but not with violence.

Khurshid: mylords said that judgment granting bail to 3 should not be treated as precedent: Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Police's Challenge Against Bail Granted To 3 Student Leaders In Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

In all fairness, there is a mention that AAJMI log book was taken and there was an extra bill of 64,000. there is discrepancy in the amount but that is the maximum allegation.

There is allegation of he attending the meeting on 22Feb, just before riots happened. AAJMI members were present, i may be present but was there an allegation that [I did something]

On calls, these calls happened when there was unrest in Jamia. Despite all these against me, there is analysis done-I called Meeran Haider, Gulfisha...it was at this time when there was huge unrest and distress. Discrepany about the amount because Meeran Haider has some answers to give.

One imp factor, there is one recent judgment- Kadeem @ Sadam and Zia Ur Rahma @ Ziya[bengaluru riots]

Khurshid: press release was immediately issued by AAJMI...all a part of the chargesheet. peaceful evidence in chargesheet indicate that the petitioner was allowed to have a say-he would as a member of AAJMI was included in Jamia Coordinate Committee but he was not allowed to speak.

He was arrested on 26th- two statements against him. I put protected statements as well-peta and hector and ...peta said that Mohd Asif and they were all present in the protest movement...Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman-I am was present- no allegation that I made provocative speech.

Nowhere any witness says I did anything illegal. Max that can be said. On issue of parity, if nothing else, I am entitled to bail on grounds on which the three petitioners were granted bail.

Correction Khurshid for Shifa Ur Rehman

Khurshid: I will take off from where Sibal ended-during vietam war, there was chicago trial-there is something there which was lesson for us- there is right to protest but where to draw the line when something is protesting peacefully but is provoked? ...nobody is justified to endulging in violence. All I am saying is, for Meeran Haider nobody said he indulged in violence or anything which is patently illegal.

generally casting net saying you may or may not have done anything but...there was an incident in Jamia, riots happened in Feb and incident happened in December where police marched and ramsacked in the university. Matter still pending before Delhi HC, but no allegation of violence despite he was there in campus.

He is president of AAJMI. Entire AAJMI organisation not made an accused, he has been handpicked. I join my colleagues in saying nothing is made out under UAPA-not stage have I done anything to delay the trial.

Pls look at the background-student in politics, he treats Jamia Millia not just his alma matar..he continues to serve their. Delhi Protest Support Grp was formed, he was not the member, was certainly involved in meeting but nobody said he supported in a manner not legal or acceptful.

ASG Raju: how is that relevant?

Sibal: just stating the fact, mylords can ignore.

J Kumar: shedding tears?

Sibal: I am just stating the nature of investigation

Sibal: 751 FIRs, each with jurisdictional police, tried with jurisdictional court and discharged. I was tried in one- FIR 59, which was registered by special cell and it deals with conspiracy. I wanted to clarify. I am not in 750 FIRs. I am not involved in anyone of them.

Arguments on charge are over.

J Kumar: you have said, that petitioner was arraigned in another FIR 101-Khajuriskhan.

Sibal: another point, 116 cases are tried and concluded and out of which 97 ended up in acquittal. Just note that fact.

J Kumar: how are you concerned?

Sibal: I am not, but just stating facts. 16-17 cases frictures passed that fabrication of evidence.

ASG Raju comes.

J Kumar: you are fixed for 3:45

Matter to be taken up at 2 PM

J Kumar: We are having today matters ranging from 2 years to 18 years. We have involved NIC...they should take up these cases, I don't know why jurisdictional courts don't take up.

J Kumar: we can take it up at 2:30

Counsel: at 2:30, Mr Raju has fixed matter

J Kumar: then let them argue and let Mr Raju come at 2:30

matter taken up.

Sr Adv Salman Khurshid: together we will take 10 minutes per accused.

J Kumar: we have 17 bail matters ranging from 3 to 17 years. We are just adjusting our time.