On 9th April, Delhi Karkardooma Court heard the prosecution’s arguments in Umar Khalid‘s bail matter. Umar Khalid is one of the accused in a larger conspiracy case in the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots 2020.
In his arguments, the prosecution cited a previous judgment where the court rejected Khalid’s bail to prove that a surface-level analysis of the evidence in the matter was already done while denying bail. In the judgment, it was said that Khalid is connected with many accused, and all evidence must be seen in totality.
Prosecution reads from previous bail judgement (where bail wasn’t granted) to prove that a surface level analysis of the evidence was already done while denying bail. The judgement had said that Umar has connectivity with many accused and all evidence must be seen in totality
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
Furthermore, the court noted in the previous judgment, “In a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the accused is present at the spot.” It is crucial, as Khalid’s lawyer argued he was not present at the scene when the riots broke out. Furthermore, the court had said, “On perusal of chargesheet and documents, the court had decided that the case against Umar Khalid is prima facie true.”
Prosecution now talks about denial of bail by High Court.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
The prosecution says that all argument made by the Defence last hearing was already made in front of this court (sessions) and the high court previously.
(In both instances, bail was denied)
The prosecution also pointed out that Khalid’s bail plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court. He added that the defence’s argument presented in the court for the ongoing matter in the last hearing was already made in front of the Sessions and High Court, where bail pleas were denied.
In its judgment, the prosecution mentioned that the High Court had said, “We have examined material part of CS. Material available in totality has to be considered while granting or rejecting bail. The name of Umar Khalid finds repeated mention from the beginning of conspiracy till the end of the riots.” The prosecution added that the High Court had “fully agreed” with the Sessions Court’s decision to reject the bail plea and said the accusations appear to be prima facie valid.
The prosecution says that in this bail application, the Defence has been emphasizing on the facts stated and the supposed discrepancies in the CS. The present case is for bail and not discharge. It has to be rested at the time of cross examination. The detailed examination of…
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
Speaking on the defence’s argument that there were discrepancies in the chargesheet, the prosecution said the present case was for bail and not discharge. “It has to be rested at the time of cross-examination. The detailed examination of evidence of the merits of the case is not to be taken at the bail stage, which might negatively affect the trial,” the prosecution added.
Furthermore, the prosecution also discussed the portions of the previous judgment where CDR analysis was discussed. The prosecution said, “The CDR is a matter of evidence, and the veracity can be confirmed only during cross-examination—this is a matter of trial.”
The prosecution made the argument to point out that the Sessions and High Court had previously heard all of the defence arguments in this hearing. The arguments were evaluated, and bail was denied. Notably, the defence had argued that the High Court previously did not do a surface-level analysis of the evidence and hence asked the court to do that and grant bail. Countering his argument, the prosecution said that the study was done, and only after that was the bail denied by The High Court.
Furthermore, the prosecution replied to the allegations laid down by the defence in the argument about the “vicious media trial” against Umar Khalis. The prosecution said that the defence made an application before the court supported by an affidavit and claimed that SC was pleased to “dismiss SLP”.
The prosecution cited the Supreme Court’s order in the Natasha case, where the court specifically said that the judgement wouldn’t be treated as precedent. Here, the prosecution basically noted that the defence was not accurate when the Supreme Court said they were “pleased to dismiss SLP.”
The prosecution said, “The SC has made the embargo in interim direction clear and final.” The prosecution pointed out that parity cannot be sought based on bail for Natasha, Devangana, etc., as the SC said the order won’t be taken as a precedent.
The prosecution said, “3 people have been let out on bail. They have been let out by lifting the embargo. The HC has upheld the bar of 43D5. The courts have done a surface analysis of evidence in Umar Khalid’s case by both courts even before Vernon’s judgement. Therefore, the case remains unaffected by Vernon. Both cases have also said that 43D5 will remain. The others were given bail on an order lifting embargo of 43D5 – but also said it will NOT be treated as precedent. It means “it was not by law”.”
The prosecution now goes thorough list of adjournments showing that most adjournments were taken by Umar Khalid himself
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
(It is pertinent to mention here that out of 14 times, 7 adjournments were sought by Umar Khalid in SC)
Pointing out the delay in the trial, the prosecution went through the list of adjournments sought by Umar Khalid himself. Out of 14 times, seven adjournments were sought by Khalid in the Supreme Court. The prosecution’s mention of the adjournments sought by Khalid shows that there was essentially a concerted effort to delay the trial so that they could later claim the delay as grounds for demanding bail. This particular point was raised by the prosecution in a hearing in 2023, and the trial said, “People on bail are trying to stall hearings so that those in jail can demand bail on the argument of delay.”
‘Umar Khalid has a habit of creating media and SM narrative’, said the prosecution
During the arguments, the prosecution pointed out that the cellphone data shows he was in the habit of creating media and SM narrative. The prosecution named several celebrities and activists who were in contact with Khalid. Notably, Khalid regularly sent them reports by The Wire, The Quint and other publications to set a narrative on social media and several of them were shared by the said celebrities and activists.
Conversation With Jignesh Mewani
The prosecution mentioned WhatsApp chants between Umar and Jignesh Mevani. He pointed out that Khalid sent Jignesh a link to a report by The Wire and requested that he share it on Twitter.
PP now talks about some WhatsApp chats of Umar submitted to the court.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
CITES CHATS WITH JIGNESH MEVANI.
“Umar sends a Wire link to Jignesh”.
“Bro is possible share on Twitter. We should amplify”
Conversation with Yogendra Yadav
The prosecution shared a conversation between Yogendra Yadav and Khalid. Yadav confirmed he had tweeted what Umar had asked to.
CITES CHAT BETWEEN UMAR AND YOGENDRA YADAV about Dr Kafeed case – #FreeDrKafeel hashtag.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
Yadav confirms that he had tweeted on Umar’z instructions
Conversation with Pooja Bhatt
The same message to propagate “#FreeDrKafeel” was forwarded to Pooja Bhatt.
UMAR CHATS WITH POOJA BHATT read out.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
Char was about freeing Dr Kafeel
Umar Khalid in conversation with Sushant Singh and Raghu Karand
Khalid shared an article by The Quint with Karand and Sushant, which Sushant then shared on Twitter.
PP reads out chats between Umar and Sushant Singh. He talks about the Quint report shared. Sushant shared the Quint report on instruction of Umar.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
“Umar uses people like Pooja Bhatt, Sushant, Yogendra etc to create media narrative” – PP
Messages in the WA group ‘Hum Bharat Ke Log’
In the “Hum Bharat Ke Log” group, he requested to schedule protests after the Supreme Court hearing. He urged the members to issue an official statement on the arrest of “students of Jamia.” He also encouraged everyone to use specific hashtags so the posts could trend on social media.
Continuing:
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
“Umar suggests “Hum Bharat Ke Log” should issue statement to condemn arrest of Students Of Jamia. He says that if they release a statement, Wire, Quint will certainly cover. They can also be pushed through SM”
Conversation With Rasika
In May 2020, he had a conversation with Rasika, and he said he needed help amplifying social media posts.
Umar chat with Rasika recounted.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
“Need help with amplifying this tomorrow”.
“Just a reminder – from 12 noon we will trend “stand with Jamia”
Umar Khalid in conversation with Sanjukta
Khalid shared a link with Sanjukta and asked her to push a report by The Quint where Zuckerberg called out Kapil Mishra.
UMAR MESSAGES WITH SANJUKTA BASU read out
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
He shares links to post with Sanjukta. He asked her to push news of Zuckerberg calling out Kapil Mishra. Shares another Quint article too.
sanyukta confirmed sharing
Later, In June, Umar asked her to amply Quint’s report, to which she replied that it was already done and shared the link to the post.
Conversation with Swara Bhaskar
In the conversation about Kafeel Khan, Further, Khalid told Swara that Kolkata Park Circus Shaheen Bagh wanted her to join.
UMAR MESSAGES WITH SWARA BHASKAR READ OUT
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
The messages were about Kafeel Khan.
Further, Umar told Swara that Kolkata Park Circus Shaheen Bagh wanted Swara to join them
Conversation with Onir
He shared The Quint report with Onir, which he shared on Twitter.
Messages with Onir read out
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
Onir confirmed posting what Umar had sent
Umar Khalid and Alt News’s Archit’s conversation
Khalid also contacted the Alt News team. Alt News asked if they could quote Umar Khalid, but Umar Khalid said he didn’t want to be quoted, so AltNews complied.
Alt news asks if they can quote Umar Khalid. Umar Khalid said he didn’t want to be quoted. So AltNews complied
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
The prosecution also mentioned chats with Harjit Singh Bhatti and Shal Mali. Bhatti was assured that Khalid Saifi would be admitted to AIIMS. Furthermore, Anu Chenoy put Shal and Khalid in touch.
UMAR KHALID CHAT with Shal Mali. “Focus on Global south”. Anu Chenoy put them in touch.
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
The prosecution pointed out how Khalid used the media to circulate his messages. He said, “Umar Khalid wrote the letter to the Delhi commissioner. He gave it to the media. The media published it, and then the articles were circulated internally. This is what is called procuring witnesses.”
The prosecution then played an interview of Khalid’s father with The Wire’s Arfa Sherwani to show how he was lying and creating a narrative. Arfa talks about how Umar is not getting bail and how his father’s petition has been withdrawn from the SC. Arfa asked his father why he didn’t get bail and if he still trusted the judiciary. Ilyas talked about 14 adjournments and how it felt when there were deliberate delays. Earlier, defence refrained from informing the court that Khalid’s father was ex-SIMI member.
SQR talks about 14 adjournments and talks about how it felt like there were deliberate delays (audio unclear from where I am sitting)
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) April 9, 2024
Further hearing in the matter will occur on 10 April at 3 PM.
