Delhi riots case 2020: No case of conspiracy made out as there is no agreement of minds, argues Sharjeel Imam

Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Thursday heard the arguements on the framing of charges on behalf of accused Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case. Sharjeel's counsel argued that no conspiracy case was made out against him, as there was no agreement of mind, and there were no chats or phone calls with the co-accused persons.

Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Thursday heard the arguements on the framing of charges on behalf of accused Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case. Sharjeel's counsel argued that no conspiracy case was made out against him, as there was no agreement of mind, and there were no chats or phone calls with the co-accused persons. It was also argued that he himself did not speak with his alleged Guru (Umar Khalid). The Supreme Court rejected his bail plea on January 5.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai heard the arguements advanced by the advocate Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim on behalf of Sharjeel Imam. The counsel argued that there is no conspiracy case as far as Sharjeel Imam is concerned.

The chats included in the charge sheet, I (Sharjeel) am not connected with any chats. No chats that can connect Sharjeel to any chats with any co-accused, no call with any co-accused, the counsel argued. The entire case is based on the WhatsApp chats. Sharjeel Imam had no involvement in the riots. Sharjeel has been arrayed for the role in conspiracy to cause riots, the counsel said.

It is alleged that Sharjeel distributed pamphlets opposing the discriminatory nature of the CAA, the counsel said. During the arguements, the counsel said that there was a speech on December 13, 2019. I am facing Prosecution in that case. Allegedly, it caused some violence on December 15. There is no link between the speech with the violence.

Sharjeel Imam left the Shaheen Bagh protest site for reasons stated in our Facebook post, the counsel said. He vacated the space and left the Shaheen Bagh site in view of statements made by political parties. After he left the site, there was no violence, the council added.

It was further argued that from January 3 to January 13 did not go to any protest site. Thereafter, I (went) went to Aligarh. There was a speech, but there was no call for protest. Thereafter, I went to West Bengal, Bihar. There was no violence after my speeches in Aligarh, Bengal and Bihar. I am facing Prosecution for the speeches, the counsel said.

Sharjeel was arrested on January 28, 2020. It is alleged that Donald Trump was to arrive in India. They were planning to do something big so that India could be defamed.

It is alleged that conspirators knew from January 14 that Trump was coming to India. However, the official schedule came on February 11, the counsel added. " Sharjeel Imam has been in jail since January 28. Therefore, I am not connected with anything that happened post-February 11," the counsel said.

It is alleged that planning was changed post February 11. "I (Sharjeel) was not part of any meeting or discussion that led to any violence. I was not part of the discussion regarding what was to be done during President Trump's visit. I have not been called a top conspirator," the council argued. There was no violence at the site where I was. It is stated that the conspiracy failed in December, the counsel argued. Thereafter the DPSG WhatsApp group was formed to refine the conspiracy.

At the time of DPSG's formation, Sharjeel was in custody. It is alleged that, following the failure of the December Conspiracy, the planning was refined. Therefore, the DPSG was formed, the counsel submitted. In relation to the Preparation of violence, it was submitted that Sharjeel's name is only in one place. His name appears in connection with the 20 January 2020 Bihar speech, allegedly for planning riots during the visit, because, according to the police, he was aware of the visit's schedule. He was only referring to the date of the hearing in the Supreme Court.

The police have also mentioned A photo of a meeting in September 2019. I have never spoken to my Guru (Umar). " For any Conspiracy, there should be an agreement. There is no mention of violence in my speech, the counsel argued.

There are two belated witnesses who stated that they met Tahira Dawood on December 8, and I was taking instructions from Yogendra Yadav. Umar was also there; I did not speak to him, the counsel added. It is alleged that Sharjeel was intended that there should be violence. Instead, there were repeated calls for nonviolence by

Police said that I was part of a conspiracy for violence. Where are the chats, where are the calls related to the violence or Conspiracy, the counsel argued. " Agreement is essential, not merely the discussion is sufficient for conspiracy," Sharjeel's counsel concluded.

Imam is an Accused in a case of an alleged larger Conspiracy of the Delhi Riots 2020. He, along with others, including Umar Khalid, has been booked and charge sheeted under the stringent anti-terror law UAPA. (ANI)

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