Delhi Riots Case: Discharge of Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi Does Not Mean Lack of Evidence, Delhi Police Tells High Court

New Delhi, December 8: Concluding its argument opposing the bail plea of Abdul Saifi, Special Public Prosecutor for Delhi Police on Thursday submitted in the Delhi High Court that the discharge of Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi in Khajuri Khas riot case does not mean that there is lack of evidence.

The high court listed the matter on Monday for rebuttal argument on behalf of appellant Abdul Khalid Saifi. He is accused of a larger conspiracy of the Delhi riots 2020 under UAPA. Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi Discharged In 2020 Delhi Riots Case.

A special bench, comprising justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar, listed the matter for hearing rebuttal arguments after hearing the submissions of Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad.

During his concluding argument, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad said, "Before we go ahead, the first issue is the celebrated order regarding discharge in case related to riots in Khajuri Khas, that was quite a bone of contention to say this is the kind of prosecution they have been made to face. Delhi Riots Case: Sharjeel Imam Moves Supreme Court Against High Court Order Calling Him ‘Main Conspirator’.

As far as Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid are concerned, the reason for their  discharge is not lack of evidence but because they are being prosecuted in this case." "Discharge in the said FIR 101/2020 does not take us to a logical end that there is no evidence against the accused persons," SPP Prasad added.

A Delhi Court hearing riots-related cases last week had discharged both Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid in a riot case, observing that the allegations made against them relate to an 'Umbrella Conspiracy' rather than conspiracy pertaining to the incident being probed in that case.

Justice Mridul asked the SPP, "You mean the Umbrella conspiracy encompasses the case in which they have been discharged?" SPP replied in the affirmative. He was opposing the argument advanced by Senior Advocate Rebecca John that there was no connection between Khalid Saifi and co-accused persons in the case.

The speeches made by Khalid Saifi were identical in nature to the speeches made by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. He is a resident of Khureji, but he gave speeches in Jamia. The SPP also submitted that Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid were members of WhatsApp groups United Against Hate (UAH) and DPSG, they attended all the meetings and were present everywhere.

It was argued on behalf of Khalid Saifi that there is no connection of the petitioner with the protest site of Chand Bagh where the first incident of violence occured. This contention was opposed by Prasad and he said that merely because in Khureji violence did not erupt does not mean that it was not a part of the conspiracy.

During his concluding argument, the SPP said that there is ample evidence against the appellant and there is no infirmity in the order denying bail to him. He also can not claim parity with Ishrat Jahan who was not a part of any WhatsApp groups.

Khalid Saifi has challenged the trial court order denying him bail in the larger conspiracy of the Delhi riots of February 2020. He was denied bail by the Karkardooma Court.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)