In February 2020, Delhi was gripped with communal tension as Muslim mobs started running rampage, targeting Hindus, their houses and businesses. As is the nature of the Left and Islamist cabal, facts were discarded to peddle a narrative that the violence was perpetrated by the Hindu community specifically targeting the Muslim community. Today, Delhi High Court rejected the bail plea of former JNU student Umar Khalid in connection with a case pertaining to the bigger conspiracy in the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi riots, involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).
“We don’t find any merit in bail appeal, appeal is dismissed,” the bench led by Justice Siddharth Mirdul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said.
The division bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mirdul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar had reserved their decision on Khalid’s bail application on September 9. Khalid had moved to the Delhi HC after he was denied bail by the trial court on March 24. He was arrested on September 13, 2020, and has been in the custody since then. Umar Khalid had challenged the lower court’s order rejecting his bail application on the grounds that there is no evidence linking him to the violence that erupted in Delhi during the riots.
The conclusions drawn by the High Court while dismissing the bail plea of Umar Khalid reinforces the fact that there was indeed a larger conspiracy at play, to be carried out while the then US President Donald Trump was in Delhi, targeting Hindus. This reinforcement in turn busts the narrative that the Left cabal was trying to peddle for the two years about the violence being targeted specifically at the Muslim community, branding the anti-Hindu violence as “anti-Muslim pogrom”.
The court, in its conclusion, said, “As per the charge sheet as discussed above & the materials collated during the investigation, if taken at face value, there appears to be a premeditated conspiracy for causing disruptive chakka-jam and pre-planned 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 the 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 and 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 the community residing in North-East Delhi, creating thereby panic and an alarming sense of insecurity. 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 a pre-mediated plan and as such the same would prima facie be covered by the definition of a ‘terrorist act'”.
One of the operative portions in this part of the conclusion drawn by the court is not only the fact that if the charges are taken on face value, there was a premeditated conspiracy for causing chakka-jam, which was a disrupting and destructive protest, unlike usual protests in the normal course of politics, but also the fact that the attack on police personnel by women protestors, followed by others, was proof of such a premeditated plan. The court says in this portion that such a premeditated act would be prima facie covered by the definition of “terrorist act”.
The court further says, “Further, as per precedents, terrorism is an act done with a view to disturb the even tempo of society, create a sense of fear in mind of a section of society. The argument of the appellant is objectively 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 already mentioned above, 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. Further, the weapons used, the manner of attack and the resultant deaths and destruction caused indicates that it was pre-planned. Acts which threaten the unity and integrity of India and cause friction in communal harmony and create terror in any section of the people, by disturbing the social fabric is also a priori a terrorist act”.
In this portion, the High Court observes that while the defence has claimed that there is no statement by any witness which could be termed as inculpatory against him, the fact is that in the conspiracy, different people were ascribed different roles to carry about and that several witnesses have named Umar Khalid and other accused persons indulging in open discussion about violence, riots, financing the violence and acquiring weapons. The court also says that the weapons used and the manner of attack indicates that the violence was pre-planned.
The court said in para 65, 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 CDR analysis depicts 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. These protests & riots prima-facie seem to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings held from December, 2019 till February, 2020.
There are several important points made in para 65 that must be broken down for an accurate analysis:
- The court categorically states that his name finds recurring mention from the beginning of the conspiracy till the culmination of the violence in February.
- He was a member of the WhatsApp groups where violence and the conspiracy itself were being discussed, including the DPSG group.
- He had referred to the visit of the President of the USA in his Amravati speech – it is a part of the conspiracy charge sheet that violence was planned to coincide with this day.
- When the violence started, CDR shows that there was a flurry of calls to and from Umar Khalid and other co-accused.
- Witness statements indicate the active participation of Umar Khalid in the protests.
- These protests culminated in violent riots in February 2020, which began with choking roads and then violently attacking police personnel and random members of the public.
- Firearms, stones, acid bottles etc were used.
- These protests & riots prima-facie seem to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings held from December 2019 till February 2020.
While saying that the court is not commenting on the merits of the case, the court also said that for the purpose of this bail application, the charges against Umar Khalid appear prima facie true.
“Further, on the in-depth and considered perusal of the charge- sheet, the accompanying documents and in view of the discussions herein above, only for the limited purpose of the present bail; this court expresses the inescapable conclusion that allegations against the Appellant are “prima facie true” and hence, the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies squarely with regard to the consideration of the grant of bail to the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant‟s application seeking regular bail is rejected”.
The entire premise of the Left and Islamist cabal, which has been repeated ad nauseam since 2020 is that the riots erupted specifically against the Muslim community at the provocation of BJP leaders like Kapil Mishra and Anurag Thakur. This conclusion was drawn even though the first murder that occurred during the riots was that of constable Ratan Lal. In fact, violence had erupted against the Hindu community ever since December 2019, as detailed in our report.
It is pertinent to note that one the chargesheets specifically says that the violence was initiated by the anti-CAA protesters and the Muslim community specifically against those who were protesting in favour of CAA.
The first evidence of Umar Khalid’s role in the Delhi Riots came when a speech made by him surfaced. The speech was allegedly made on the 20th of February in Amravati. In the speech, he was clearly heard saying that on the 24th of February, when President Donald Trump visits India, Muslims should ‘show’ the visiting US president that the people of India are fighting against the ruling party of India.
The entire speech was about 17 minutes long where Khalid invoked the false narratives of ‘targeted mob lynching’ against Muslims and then went on to say that when the Muslims did not revolt against the Ayodhya judgement by Supreme Court, the government took it for granted that they can bring any law against Muslims.
Inciting the crowd further, saying the CAA has been brought to harm Muslims, Khalid says that the people should show the government its ‘Aukaad’, and take to the streets to throw it out. He further says that if enough people take to the streets, first the CAA will go, then the NPR and then NRC, eventually the government will also go.
It was 4 days after this speech, on the 24th of February, as Umar Khalid had predicted, that riots broke out. Ankit Sharma was stabbed over 50 times by the mobs of Tahir Hussain. Dilbar Negi’s arms and legs were chopped off and he was burnt alive by Muslims. Amidst chants of Allahu Abkar and Nara e Taqbeer, Hindus were specifically targeted.
In the chargesheet filed in FIR 114, the role of Umar Khalid in the conspiracy hatched is mentioned clearly. It says that Tahir Hussain was connected to Khalid Saifi of United Against Hate Group and through Saifi, he was also in touch with Umar Khalid. Khalid Saifi, it says, had arranged a meeting between Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain on the 8th of January at Shaheen Bagh. In that meeting, it was decided to take ‘big action’ so the government gets shaken up on the issue of CAA and NRC and also, ensure that the international community takes notice of that action.
In the chargesheet, it is also mentioned that Umar Khalid had told Tahir Hussain not to be concerned about the funding for the riots as the Popular Front of India (PFI) would provide the funding as well as logistic support. It was categorically mentioned that the riots were to take place when President Donald Trump would visit India.
From everything that is alleged in the chargesheet, it is clear that Umar Khalid was perhaps one of the masterminds who was also constantly in touch with Pinjra Tod activists who are also accused of grave sections. Khalid Saifi of UAH, who is also a close associate of Umar Khalid was coordinating with Tahir Hussain after their initial meeting in Shaheen Bagh on the 8th of January. Further, Tahir Hussain was coordinating with other rioters and instigators.
In the court observations today, it is evident that the prosecution has made a strong case where there is ample evidence that goes to show that there indeed was a conspiracy hatched to target Hindus of North East Delhi, coinciding with the day that Donald Trump would be visiting, so as to maximise the attention the violence would get. In such a scenario, the narrative built by the Left cabal, alleging that this was violence against the Muslim community summarily falls flat, or at the very least, appears to be crumbling as facts that were long known are now being ratified by the court of law.
