SHARJEEL IMAN, UMAR KHALID, GULFISHA FATIMA, Meeran Haider and Shifa-ur-Rehman — accused in an alleged larger conspiracy relating to the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — who have challenged before the Supreme Court the September 2 Delhi High Court order denying them bail, on Thursday concluded their arguments asserting their innocence.
The arguments by the six accused before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, which commenced on October 31, were spread over three days. The Delhi Police, which has opposed the bail pleas, will begin its arguments on November 11.
‘Orchestrated conspiracy’: Delhi police affidavit
Claiming that the offences alleged against the accused reflected a deliberate and coordinated attempt to destabilise the State, the Delhi Police, in its affidavit opposing the bail pleas, described the February 2020 violence as a “deep-rooted, premeditated and orchestrated conspiracy.”
It has further alleged that the violence was timed to coincide with the visit of then U.S. President Donald Trump to India. The intention, it said, was to “draw the attention of international media and project the Citizenship Amendment Act (‘CAA’) as an act of persecution against the Muslim community.”
The arguments by the six accused before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, which commenced on October 31, were spread over three days.
“The materials on record, including chats referencing U.S. President Donald Trump, establish beyond doubt that the conspiracy was pre-planned to coincide with his official visit. The purpose was to internationalise the CAA issue by portraying it as a pogrom against the Muslim community in India,” the affidavit stated.
The Delhi Police further said that the issue of CAA was “carefully chosen to act as a radicalising catalyst, camouflaged under the guise of peaceful protest.”
According to Delhi police, the conspiracy led to the deaths of 53 people, widespread damage to public property, and the registration of 753 FIRs in Delhi alone. “Evidence on record suggests that this conspiracy was designed to be replicated on a pan-India scale,” it claimed.
The affidavit was filed in response to the bail petitions of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman, who have challenged the Delhi High Court’s order denying them bail in the UAPA case relating to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the riots.
The police have maintained that both documentary and technical evidence establish the “intrinsic, deep-rooted, fervent complicity” of the accused in “engineering riots on communal lines” across the country. “The conspiracy hatched, nurtured, and executed by the petitioners sought to strike at the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of India by destroying communal harmony and instigating armed rebellion,” the Delhi Police alleged.
The police have further described such organised protests as “Regime Change Operations” and argued that, in cases striking at the integrity of India, “jail and not bail” must remain the norm.
The police contended that the allegations against the petitioners are “prima facie true” and that they have failed to rebut the presumption under UAPA. “Given the extreme gravity of the offences, bail cannot be granted merely on the ground of delay, particularly when the petitioners themselves are responsible for it,” the Delhi Police said.
According to the police, the accused have “brazenly misused the process of law” and deliberately delayed proceedings. “The delay in the commencement of the trial is solely attributable to the petitioners, who through their machinations have sought to derail and obstruct the process,” it added.
The Delhi High Court, on September 2, had refused bail to Khalid, Imam, and seven others, noting that their roles were “grave” and their speeches “inflammatory.”
Delhi HC refused bail on September 2
The Delhi High Court, on September 2, had refused bail to Khalid, Imam, and seven others, noting that their roles were “grave” and their speeches “inflammatory.” The Court had held that the riots were not spontaneous but “a planned conspiracy with a sinister motive.”
The violence, which broke out during protests against the CAA and the National Register of Citizens (‘NRC’), had left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.