'No Physical Evidence, Only Delayed Witness Statements': Umar Khalid Tells Court In Delhi Riots UAPA Case

Former JNU scholar Umar Khalid on Friday told a Delhi Court that the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case under UAPA is not a case of any physical evidence but involves only statements recorded by the Delhi Police months after the incident.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais made the submission on behalf of Khalid before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts, while opposing framing of charges against Khalid.

The case relates to FIR 59 of 2020 investigated by Delhi Police's special cell. The UAPA case alleges a larger conspiracy in the commission of the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

“You can catch hold of anyone 11 months after the event, get them to say anything and that's a UAPA case. The case of the prosecution is that I don't need evidence. I need statements. This is a case of no physical evidence. Other than the speech,” Pais said.

He submitted that if the Court goes only by the statements recorded by the prosecution, the case will go nowhere and will remain in the manner in which it has been since 2020.

“If you have statements only, where will the case go? It will go nowhere. It will remain in the manner in which it has been in the last five years. We will take this Alpha, Beta, Gamma (protected witnesses) and examine them? Where will we get? It is not a case which should have proceeded as an FIR even,” he argued.

Pais reiterated his submissions that there is no recovery or physical evidence in relation to Khalid. He added that there is no allegation of procurement of funds against Khalid. 751 FIRs, I am not an accused except one, he said.

Pais also clarified that out of the four WhatsApp groups in which Khalid was added, he only sent three messages in DPSG group. He said that although he was added in MSJ group, he did not send any message nor any message was addressed to him.

Furthermore, Pais contended that the timing of recording of statements against Khalid by the prosecution was “extremely suspicious”, as they were recorded months or even a year after his arrest.

“Normally there should be some kind of evidence before the FIR is registered. I am not saying that you cannot register an FIR if you have evidence. But you have named me and called it a conspiracy….,” he said.

Pais referred to a statement of a protected prosecution witness indicating the allegation that there was information of a prior conspiracy to commit the riots.

“I would require your honour to bear in mind that there was no material prior to that. The conspiracy is done by me. I will think that the recording (of statement) under 161 would come immediately. Please see, in March you register the FIR. April 03 is the first statement. If you had such definitive statement of conspiracy…. I am not saying that if you get information on March 06 that there was a conspiracy before, would you not have the witness deposing that evening?,” Pais said.

“Let's assume you don't have information before March 06, which is a reflection on the police personnel, be that as it may, would you not on March 06 evening have your “mukhbir” tell you what it is? Your main conspiracy witness surfaces in September whereas he spoke in May,” he added.

“How do you have a witness who supports chakka jam, who takes part in all the acts in this conspiracy and is still conveniently a witness? He doesn't go there as a decoy or spy. He is a part of the activity. How is he not an accused? He is not an approver,” he argued.

The matter will continue to be heard on October 28 and 29.

Previously, Pais submitted that the Delhi Police indulged in “pick and choose” action and only named him as an accused in the case, while leaving various other individuals, including some who are attributed “bigger role” in the chargesheet.

Pais had flagged fabrication of evidence found by the trial court in seventeen 2020 Delhi riots cases, out of the 93 cases which resulted in acquittals.

He had argued that Khalid has spent five years in custody in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, calling it a “joke of an FIR.”

Khalid was arrested in the case by the Delhi Police on September 13, 2020. He was recently denied bail in the case by a division bench of the Delhi High Court on September 02.

He has approached the Supreme Court challenging denial of his bail. The matter is listed for hearing on October 27.

By the impugned order, the Delhi High Court also denied bail to co-accused Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed. A different bench also denied bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed.

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

It further said that the trial need only progress naturally, as a “hurried trial” will be detrimental both to the accused and the State.

FIR 59 of 2020 was registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The other accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Devangana Kalita, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.

In June 2020, Safoora Zargar was given bail on humanitarian grounds on account of her pregnancy. In June 2021, the High Court, on merits, granted bail to three other accused - Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal.