North East Delhi riots: Time spent in custody is also 'changed circumstances', says Umar Khalid's counsel on bail

The senior counsel for the former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid who is accused in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case related to the larger conspiracy of the Delhi Riots case on Thursday argued that time spent in custody is also 'changed circumstances'.

The senior counsel for the former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid who is accused in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case related to the larger conspiracy of the Delhi Riots case on Thursday argued that time spent in custody is also 'changed circumstances'. He also claimed that the other accused had been granted bail.

Umar Khalid who has been in custody since September 14, 2024 and has sought regular bail in the matter. His bail plea is under consideration before Karkardooma Court. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai listed the matter for hearing the arguments by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) on April 3.

Senior advocate Trideep Pias appeared and argued for Umar Khalid. He submitted that time is also a changed circumstance. His further incarceration implies a change in circumstances. He submitted that there was a change of circumstances in terms of time, a change of law, some laws becoming obsolete, or co-accused getting bail.

It was also submitted that two circumstances entitled Khalid for bail, the factual basis on which the three accused, namely Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, have been granted bail has several overlaps with Umar Khalid. Senior counsel also submitted that the Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali judgement says that the Court can't become the mouthpiece of the government. When the judge is looking at bail, they must look at it more liberally than discharge.

"The Court must be satisfied with the worth of the evidence. No terrorist act has been attributed to the accused," Khalid's counsel argued. He also added the court cannot be the stenographer of the prosecution.

During the arguments, Trideep Pais also referred to the charge sheet, which said that Khalid was part of a WhatsApp group titled Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ). "I have sent no message on the WhatsApp group. Just being a part of it doesn't make me an accused," the senior counsel argued.

He also referred to the Supreme Court judgement granting bail to Bheema Koregaon accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira and said my (Umar Khalid) CDR doesn't even place me at the meeting in Jantar Mantar. The senior counsel also rejected the allegations that Umar Khalid instructed Sharjeel Imam to mobilise the youth for chakka jam as a protest against CAA.

"This is a baseless inference of the prosecution. Fertile imagination of the author of the chargesheet. There are no witnesses for this either," he argued. It was also submitted that NGO NAPM, Khalid, Yogender Yadav, and Imam were part of this meeting held in December 2019

He argued that the statements in this regard only say I (Umar Khalid) attended the meeting. "Nothing particular is said against me. Why are just 2 of the 7 people been accused? What makes them stand out?" he said.

The senior advocate contended, "Yogender Yadav is not an accused, Prasant Tandon is not an accused. Why only Imam and Khalid? They do not attribute any criminality to anyone in the meeting." "Participation in a meeting is not illegal. You don't know what the contents of the meeting are. Other members of the meeting are not accused," Pias argued. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)