Umar Khalid, a former student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, argued before the Delhi High Court on Friday, December 6, that there is no direct evidence linking him to the violence or any fundraising activities associated with the riots.
Represented by senior advocate Trideep Pais, Khalid’s legal team highlighted the absence of physical or circumstantial evidence against him and sought bail, citing his prolonged incarceration as an undertrial, reported The New Indian Express.
Khalid’s plea was presented before a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, who were hearing bail applications filed by Khalid and co-accused Meeran Haider. Both defendants sought relief on grounds of parity, extended detention, and delays in the trial.
The Delhi Police, meanwhile, requested more time to respond to the submissions. The court has adjourned the matter for further hearing on December 12.
In his arguments, Trideep Pais emphasised the lack of evidence connecting Khalid to any criminal acts. “There is no physical or circumstantial evidence, no disclosures, and no materials that link Khalid to the violence or any terrorist activity,” Pais stated.
He further pointed out that Khalid’s name was not mentioned in the FIRs related to the 2020 violence, and that he had been discharged from the only FIR where his name initially appeared.
The only "overt act" attributed to Khalid, Pais argued, was a speech he gave in Amravati, Maharashtra, which he claimed was peaceful and aligned with Gandhian principles of non-violence.
“The speech does not incite violence. The prosecution has selectively used a clip to create an impression of outrage,” Pais asserted, challenging the prosecution's claims.
The prosecution, in its response, referred to WhatsApp group conversations and alleged meetings to support the conspiracy charges against Khalid. However, Pais downplayed the significance of these communications, asserting that Khalid’s involvement in the groups was minimal, added TNIE.
“In one group, I simply shared the location of a protest site. In another, I forwarded a police officer’s request to call off a protest during Donald Trump’s visit to Delhi,” he explained.
Regarding the alleged meetings, Pais pointed out inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. He noted that some of the accused were not present at the meetings, while others, such as activist Yogendra Yadav, were not charged.
