THE SIX ACCUSED in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case on Tuesday completed their rejoinder arguments before the Supreme Court in their appeals for bail charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) and the provision of the India Penal Code.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard the rejoinder arguments of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd. Saleem Khan, and fixed December 10 for the response of Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for Delhi Police.
Siddharth Dave: Sharjeel Imam spent six years in custody despite no physical involvement
Appearing for Imam, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave argued that while certain portions of Imam’s speeches “may be unpalatable,” they had already been granted bail in those cases. Dave emphasised that Imam was not named in any of the 750 FIRs concerning actual riot incidents.
“He made no call to pick up weapons,” Dave said, adding that Imam was being prosecuted “not twice or thrice, but perhaps eight to ten times” for the same set of speeches.
When Justice Kumar asked him to read the Asansol speech, Dave conceded that “some of the language could have been better worded,” but stressed Imam has spent six years in custody while not being physically present at any riot site. He also underscored that Imam was arrested before the riots began and was not part of the WhatsApp groups alleged to have coordinated the violence.
“As an undertrial in a conspiracy case of this volume, six years is far too long,” Dave submitted.
Salman Khurshid: Rehman has no previous antecedents
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa-ur-Rehman, disputed allegations that Rehman received ₹8 lakh to manage a protest site. “A protest site being supported is not illegal if the protest is peaceful,” he said. Rehman has no criminal antecedents, Khurshid added.
“I am a respectable citizen, no previous antecedents but I have admitted that I have sympathy for the protest against CAA-NRC," and sympathy for a movement is not a crime,” he remarked.
Sidharth Agarwal: Haider not present in Delhi during meetings
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, for Meeran Haider, said Haider was not present in Delhi during the meetings said to form the core of the conspiracy. “My mother was unwell; we have train tickets and records,” he told the Court.
He countered the prosecution’s assertion of delay, saying the last chargesheet came three years after the FIR, and the accused only sought clarity on whether investigation was complete.
Sidharth Luthra: Call data records exonerate Shadab Ahmed
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, for Shadab Ahmed, argued that call data records (‘CDR’) exonerated his client. “I was not at the scene of crime. The CDR supports me,” he submitted, adding that one and half year later they change their stance bringing oral evidence.
Gautam Khazanchi: Khan not a ‘menace to society’
Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, for Mohd. Saleem Khan, said Khan did not pose a societal threat and had clearly set out his limited role. “Since I am not a menace to society, I may be released on bail,” he said.
With all defence submissions now complete, the Court will hear ASG Raju’s reply on Wednesday. The accused have challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order denying them bail. The High Court had termed the riots as “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 Citizenship Amendment Act (‘CAA’) and the National Register of Citizens (‘NRC;), had left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
