New Delhi: Delhi Police’s argument that former JNU student Umar Khalid is creating stories on social media to influence the bail hearing was rejected by his lawyer on Wednesday. Umar Khalid’s lawyer asked the court whether sharing WhatsApp messages is a criminal or terrorist act. Umar Khalid is accused of an alleged big conspiracy behind the 2020 riots in East Delhi. A case has been registered against him under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai was hearing Khalid’s second bail plea before the special court. The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) says that I have created a narrative. Is sharing messages (on WhatsApp) a criminal or terrorist act? …Is the court able to see the ridiculousness of their (prosecution’s) efforts to keep someone in jail? Did Khalid’s lawyer Trideep Pais say that it is wrong for me to send the message that someone has been wrongfully imprisoned?
SPP Amit Prasad had earlier said that Khalid’s mobile phone data revealed that he was in touch with some actors, politicians, activists and celebrities, to whom he shared some news portal links and other content through their social media accounts. Sent with a request to. Establish and expand a particular narrative. Khalid’s lawyer claimed that is there anything wrong in sharing this message that he will be arrested? Am I restricted from sending limited messages to people I have sent messages to? Why can’t an accused send news to someone else?
He claimed that the prosecution had mentioned Khalid’s name ‘repeatedly’ like a mantra to accuse him of inciting riots. The lawyer asked whether ‘repeating a lie a hundred times’ could make it true. The lawyer also claimed that Khalid faced a ‘vicious media trial’ where news anchors of some TV channels were ‘reading the chargesheet’ round the clock.
Apart from claiming parity with other co-accused who had already been granted bail, the senior advocate also reiterated that the reason for activist Vernon Gonsalves being granted bail in July 2023 was because of ‘prima facie evidence’ against an accused. The Supreme Court’s view regarding this had changed. The lawyer said that the government prosecutor had said that Vernon Gonsalves and Sen had already been tried by the court, which had refused to grant me bail, this is wrong.
Underscoring that being part of a WhatsApp group is not a terrorist act. Khalid’s lawyer said that 75 percent of the group members are not accused. Why are they out on bail? Which terrorist act did Khalid commit? You should consider whether the witness statement makes out a prima facie case of terrorism against me. Why was Chakka Jam seen as terrorism? Because the prosecution said so? Refuting Khalid’s counsel’s contention that the court would have to examine each witness and analyze each document during the hearing of the accused’s bail plea, he said only a ‘limited superficial analysis’ of the case was necessary.
He cited the April 22 verdict passed by the Delhi High Court rejecting the bail appeal of Salim Malik, who is an accused in the UAPA case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 riots. The High Court had said that only a superficial analysis of the probative value of the material has to be done by the courts for granting bail in UAPA cases. It says they need to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that an allegation made against an accused is prima facie true.
The SPP also said that Khalid was acquitted from a riot case registered by the Khajuri Khas police station after observing that the evidence against him was related to a separate larger conspiracy case and not for that reason as alleged. The defense had to publicize that the witness statement was found not to be reliable. The next hearing of this case will be on May 7.
,
Tags: Delhi news, Delhi Riot, Omar Khalid
FIRST PUBLISHED: April 24, 2024, 21:03 IST