A Delhi court has denied bail to former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid, who has been in custody since September 2020. Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The court concluded that the allegations against Khalid were “prima facie true,” and his involvement in various meetings and speeches indicated a conspiratorial role in instigating the riots.
Key Points from the Court’s Decision
- Involvement in Conspiratorial Activities:
- The court noted Khalid’s participation in multiple meetings across Delhi, where strategies regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) were discussed. These meetings were viewed as part of a coordinated effort to incite violence during the protests.
- Amravati Speech:
- A significant piece of evidence cited by the prosecution was a speech delivered by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra, where he allegedly called for a “revolution.” The court observed that such speeches could influence a large audience and contribute to unrest.
- WhatsApp Groups and Coordination:
- The prosecution highlighted Khalid’s active participation in WhatsApp groups like the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) and Muslim Students of JNU, which were used to coordinate protest activities. The court agreed that these communications played a role in the conspiracy to incite violence.
- Prosecution’s Arguments:
- The prosecution argued that Khalid’s actions went beyond mere dissent and were aimed at causing significant disruption and violence. They emphasized that the conspiracy was planned to coincide with former US President Donald Trump’s visit to India, thereby attracting international attention.
- Court’s Conclusion:
- In its order, the court stressed that at the stage of bail, the statements of witnesses and other evidence must be taken at face value. The court found that Khalid’s alleged involvement in the conspiracy and the nature of the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) warranted the denial of bail.
This decision reflects the judiciary’s stance on handling cases involving national security and large-scale violence, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for thorough judicial scrutiny.