Umar Khalid tells court he was targeted by Delhi Police despite lack of evidence

Khalid sought the court’s permission to attend all the hearings on charges in person, and the court allowed the same

NEW DELHI

The matter was adjourned to September 17 for further submissions on Khalid’s behalf. (Shutterstock)

Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid on Thursday contended in a Delhi court that he and the other accused were deliberately targeted by the Delhi Police in the 2020 larger conspiracy case, implicating him even before gathering any evidence.

Continuing his arguments before additional sessions judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma court, seeking a discharge in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case, Khalid, through senior advocate Trideep Pais, submitted, “What the chargesheet indicates is that there is a target on somebody’s back…you first decide whom to implicate…the chargesheet then makes for the documentation to reach the target…this is a form of reverse engineering”.

In his contention, Pais cited 751 FIRs registered by the police during the riots, wherein courts had allegedly pulled up the prosecution for laxity and biased investigation. “The locations of these FIRs are the same ones where the violence was allegedly incited by Umar Khalid…in these acquittal orders, the court has elaborated how no case is made out due to lack of evidence and has been sent back to the prosecution for remedial action.”

Reading from the charge sheet, advocate Pais said, “He (Umar Khalid) has been called the member of the Tukde Tukde gang due to the 2016 sedition case against him…it is the factual truth as per the 2016 case’s chargesheet that nowhere did he use those words…police has tried to create a narrative by calling Umar a veteran of sedition”.

Khalid sought the court’s permission to attend all the hearings on charges in person, and the court allowed the same. The matter was adjourned to September 17 for further submissions on Khalid’s behalf.

The submissions come a day after Pais told the court that Khalid could not be charged under the UAPA for his speech, which, he insisted, was not an incitement to “imminent lawless action”.

Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in the NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), which requires a direct nexus between speech and violence, Pais told the court that the law of incitement dictates that an act of speech should be a “spark in a powder keg”.

The submissions come more than a week after the Delhi High Court rejected the bail applications of JNU student leaders Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and seven other activists accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, holding the allegations against them to be “prima facie grave”.