Delhi riots ‘pre-planned’ attack on sovereignty: Cops

The Delhi Police on Tuesday termed the 2020 Delhi riots an “orchestrated, pre-planned, and well-designed” attack on the sovereignty of India as they vehemently opposed the bail pleas of accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and three others, saying the riots were not something spontaneous.

“First of all, that myth (has) to be busted. This was not a spontaneous riot after the CAA/NRC protests…. It was a well-designed, well-crafted, well-orchestrated, pre-planned riot. That will emerge from the evidence collected... Speech after speech, statement after statement, there was an attempt to divide the society on communal lines. It was not merely an agitation against some act,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar on behalf of the Delhi Police.

“Sharjeel says it’s his heartfelt wish for ‘chakka jam’ for every city where Muslims reside. Not just in Delhi,” Mehta told the Bench, which also included Justice NV Anjaria.

He also sought to counter the allegation regarding inordinate delay in trial, saying a narrative was being built on the social media that something very serious was going on with these young people while the accused themselves were responsible for the delay.

“We are ready to complete the trial in six months. For every charge filed, the accused will argue for five years. On facts (of the case), these accused do not deserve to be released, so they delay the trial to gain a ground for bail,” Mehta alleged.

Alleging a “regime change operation” under the guise of “peaceful protest”, the Delhi Police had on October 30 opposed the bail pleas of the accused arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act-1967 (UAPA) in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.

Opposing the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman anad Md Saleem Khan, the Delhi Police had alleged that the accused conspired to strike at the sovereignty and integrity of the country by a “regime change operation” executed under the guise of “peaceful protest”.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who also represented the Delhi Police, on Tuesday said the accused couldn’t claim parity with three other co-accused — Natasha Narwal, Devyangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha — who were released on bail in June 2021 after spending a year in jail as the top court had clearly said that the bail order couldn’t be treated as a precedent.

If a person was accused under the UAPA, then bail was possible only if the conditions of Section 43D(5) were met, the ASG submitted.

“Bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of a CrPC provision when the additional rigours of the UAPA also apply to the case. Under Section 436-A, a person can be released from custody if he has spent more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence,” Raju told the Bench which will resume the hearing on November 20.

The accused have challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that denied them bail, noting that “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens couldn’t be allowed.