NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed bail plea by former JNU student and leader of left wing organisation Umar Khalid in a case related larger conspiracy in 2020 Delhi riots, "orchestrated" during anti CAA-NRC protests, after drawing "inescapable conclusion" that his involvement in "a priori terrorists acts" are "prima facie true".
A bench of Justices Rajneesh Bhatnagar and Siddharth Mridul noted that different protected witnesses have stated the role of Khalid and other accused persons and about the open discussion on violence, riots, finance and weapons.
"Further, the weapons used, the manner of attack and the resultant deaths destruction caused indicates that it was pre-planned. Acts which threaten the unity and integrity of India and cause friction in communal harmony and creates terror in any section of the people, by disturbing the social-fabric is also a priori a terrorist act," the bench said.
The court rejected Khalid's petition against the trial court's order of March 24, dismissing his bail application.
Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020 under stringent provision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
In its judgement, the bench noted the name of the appellant finds recurring mention from the beginning of the conspiracy till the culmination of the ensuing riots.
"Admittedly, he was a member of the WhatsApp group of Muslim students of JNU. He participated in various meetings at Jantar Mantar, Jangpura Office, Shaheen Bagh, Seelampur, Jaffrabad and Indian Social Institute on various dates. He was a member of the DPSG group. He referred to the visit of the president of USA to India in his Amrawati speech," the bench pointed out.
The court also said the CDR analysis depicted that there had been a flurry of calls that happened post riots amongst the appellant and other co-accused.
The cumulative statement of the protected witnesses indicates the presence and active involvement of the appellant in the protests, engineered against the CAA/NRC. Admittedly these protests metamorphosed into violent riots in February 2020, which began by firstly choking public roads, then violently and designedly attacking policemen and random members of the public, whereat firearms, acid bottles, stones etc were used, resulting in the admitted and sad loss of 53 precious lives and the destruction of property worth several Crores, it further noted.
"These protests and riots prima-facie seem to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings held from December, 2019 till February, 2020," the bench said.
Referring to the Delhi police charge sheet and statements of witnesses, the court said there appears to be a premeditated conspiracy for causing disruptive chakka-jam and preplanned protests at different planned sites in Delhi, which was engineered to escalate to confrontational chakka-jam and incitement to violence and culminate in riots in natural course on specific dates.
"The protest planned was "not a typical protest" normal in political culture or democracy but one far more destructive and injurious geared towards extremely grave consequences. Thus, as per the pre-meditated plan there was an intentional blocking of roads to cause inconvenience and disruption of the essential services to the life of community residing in North-East Delhi, creating thereby panic and an alarming sense of insecurity," the bench said.
"The attack on police personnel by women protesters in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot is the epitome of such premediated plan and as such the same would prima facie be covered by the definition of 'terrorist act'," the bench added.
The court rejected the argument of the appellant that although there was a sense of insecurity instilled in public by his speeches but he had nothing to do with it and referred to the charge-sheet to argue that there is no statement of any witnesses, which could be termed as inculpatory against him.
"However, this court has to see whether the perpetrators individually or in connection with each other are responsible for it. As noted, different roles were ascribed to different people (accused) in carrying out the said conspiracy. Different protected witnesses have stated the role of the Appellant and other accused persons and about the open discussion on violence, riots, finance and weapons," the bench added.
