NEW DELHI: Former JNU student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others, arrested under the UAPA in a conspiracy case in relation to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, on Friday denied before the Supreme Court any role in the violence and claimed they only have a call for peaceful protests during anti CAA protests.
Seeking bail before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, the accused petitioners asserted that they never made any calls for violence and were only exercising their right to peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
Khalid claimed there are 751 FIRs in the Delhi 2020 riots, and he was charged in one, and if it is a conspiracy, it was a bit surprising.
The petitioners assailed the Delhi High Court's order, which rejected their bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) regarding the alleged larger conspiracy in connection with the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal for Khalid said his client’s counsel argued on the charge for seven days, and the matter was adjourned six times.
He questioned the Delhi Police's claim in its counter-affidavit that his client was responsible for delaying the court proceedings.
He contended that there was no evidence linking his client to violence and denied conspiracy charges against him.
“The charge against me is conspiracy, only conspiracy, there are 751 FIRs, I am charged in one. The petitioner was not present in northeast Delhi and the petitioner was not even in Delhi. So, on the dates when riots took place, I was not in Delhi,” Sibal argued.
The counsel contended that there has been no recovery of funds, weapons or any material evidence linking him to the 2020 Delhi riots. “Not a single witness has given a statement that connects him to any actual incident of violence in northeast Delhi," he claimed.
He submitted that Khalid was entitled to bail on grounds of parity, noting that fellow activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail in June 2021.
Sibal said that the Delhi High Court, while denying bail, had termed Khalid’s speech at Amravati on February 17, 2020, as “inflammatory.” “It is available on YouTube. It was a public speech where I (Khalid) spoke about Gandhian principles,” he claimed.
Senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi for Gulfisha Fatima, claimed that she was entitled to bail on grounds of parity, and she has served five years and five months of incarceration; five or six chargesheets have been filed.
“I am the only woman in custody now, charges have not yet been framed, and arguments on the charge are ongoing. I completed arguments in March 2025,” he said.
Singhvi said the allegation against his client was merely that she created a WhatsApp group to coordinate or mobilise support.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave for Sharjeel Imam contended that the police took three years to complete their investigation. “Out of the five years I have spent in custody, three went by because the probe was still ongoing….the speeches were delivered by me (Imam) nearly two months before the riots,” he pointed out.
He claimed that there was no direct or proximate link to suggest that his client could have incited the violence.
The arguments would continue on November 3.
In its affidavit, the Delhi Police on Thursday vehemently opposed the bail plea by the accused petitioners, alleging they indulged in acts intended to ensure regime change and chose the strategic time during US President Donald Trump's visit.
The police claimed anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protest was used as a camouflage to cause large-scale riots across the country.
Khalid and others have been in jail since 2020 in connection with the riots which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
