NEW DELHI: Delhi’s Karkardooma court on Tuesday rejected the bail application of former JNU student leader Umar Khalid in larger conspiracy of Delhi riots case. Khalid, who is an accused in UAPA case related to 2020 Delhi riots, sought a regular bail in the matter on the grounds of delay and parity with other accused persons.
It was his second bail application.He has been in custody since September 2020 in a case under UAPA.
The Delhi police alleged that Umar Khalid pre-planned protests at 23 sites in 2020, which culminated in riots.
After withdrawing his bail plea from the Supreme Court in February, Khalid moved to the trial court seeking bail based on a change in circumstances and parity with other accused.
Senior advocate Tridip Pais, defending Umar Khalid, had questioned the Delhi police’s submissions, asking, “Is sharing messages a criminal or terror act?” He responded to earlier submissions by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), who claimed that Khalid was amplifying his narrative as part of a conspiracy by sharing certain links with people in politics and others on social media.
Pais argued that Khalid was sharing the “correct narrative.” He also claimed that a vicious media trial was taking place against Khalid, referring to statements from various news anchors who were reading charge sheet all the time.
Pais argued that no terror case is made out against Khalid and that the police have no material to this effect. He pointed out contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.
Pais also noted that other accused persons, namely Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who had similar roles to Khalid, were granted bail by the high court.
Opposing the bail application, Delhi police had said that Khalid’s chats revealed a habit of creating narratives on media and social media to influence bail hearings.
(With agency inputs)
It was his second bail application.He has been in custody since September 2020 in a case under UAPA.
The Delhi police alleged that Umar Khalid pre-planned protests at 23 sites in 2020, which culminated in riots.
After withdrawing his bail plea from the Supreme Court in February, Khalid moved to the trial court seeking bail based on a change in circumstances and parity with other accused.
Senior advocate Tridip Pais, defending Umar Khalid, had questioned the Delhi police’s submissions, asking, “Is sharing messages a criminal or terror act?” He responded to earlier submissions by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), who claimed that Khalid was amplifying his narrative as part of a conspiracy by sharing certain links with people in politics and others on social media.
Pais argued that Khalid was sharing the “correct narrative.” He also claimed that a vicious media trial was taking place against Khalid, referring to statements from various news anchors who were reading charge sheet all the time.
Pais argued that no terror case is made out against Khalid and that the police have no material to this effect. He pointed out contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.
Pais also noted that other accused persons, namely Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who had similar roles to Khalid, were granted bail by the high court.
Opposing the bail application, Delhi police had said that Khalid’s chats revealed a habit of creating narratives on media and social media to influence bail hearings.
(With agency inputs)