Northeast Delhi violence: No evidence of giving speech and using chilly powder, claims accused Gulfisha

New Delhi [India], January 6 : Delhi riots larger conspiracy case accused Gulfisha Fatima on Friday denied the allegations and claimed there is no evidence which shows that she gave any speech during the protest, or used chilly powder.
She also contended that mere presence at a meeting is not culpable.
The submissions were made before the Delhi High court during the hearing on the bail plea of Gulfisha. The trial court had dismissed her bail plea in the UAPA case on March 17, 2022.
A special division bench comprising justices Sidharth Mridul and Rajanish Bhatnagar heard the arguments on an appeal filed on behalf of Gulfisha against the bail dismissal order passed by the Karkardooma Court.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no clear statement of any witness related to any incident. There is no recovery made from the petitioner. There was the statement of only one witness when the petitioner was arrested.
It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in order to establish that Gulfisha was a part of the Maujpur area where some violence happened, Delhi police recorded the statement of another witness on September 15, 2020.
Her counsel submitted that an FIR was registered in relation to what happened in Maujpur and the petitioner is not named in that FIR. The counsel added that the petitioner was part of a sit-in protest at Metro station Jafrabad. Delhi police registered 2 cases in this regard.
As per the allegations Gulfisha was present in two meetings. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was merely present in a meeting attended by Umar Khalid there is no evidence that she said anything in the meeting. She also allegedly attended a secret meeting at Chand Bagh.
A Delhi Court dismissed the bail plea of Gulfisha Fatima an accused in a larger conspiracy case related to Northeast Delhi Violence. She was booked by Delhi Police Special Cell under Sections of UAPA. It is alleged she was organising a protest at Jafrabad. The court held that the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.
However, she was granted bail by the Delhi High Court in another related FIR in connection with violence at Jafrabad in which one person Aman died.
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court had dismissed the bail plea of student activist Gulfisha Fatima. He said on the perusal of the charge sheet and accompanying documents, for the limited purpose of the bail, I am of the opinion that allegations against the accused Gul @ Gulfisha is prima facie true.
It was alleged by the prosecution that three Whatsapp groups of JCC were created by Gulfisha Fatima instead of Safoora and Asif was not made a part of this group. The three groups were JCC JMI Officials, JMI and JCC-JMI.
The Court rejected the contention that bail should be granted on the ground of parity as bail was granted to accused Devangana, Natasha and Asif Iqbal Tanha by the Delhi High Court on 15 June 2021. As the judgement was stayed by the Supreme Court on 18 June 2021.
The prosecution had argued that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the accusation against the accused Gulfisha is prima facie true and hence the bail application of the accused may be dismissed.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad had vehemently argued that the Delhi riots in 2020 were a large-scale and deep-rooted conspiracy hatched after the passing of the resolution by the Cabinet Committee to present CAB in both Houses of Parliament on December 4, 2019.
SPP argued that in this entire conspiracy, there were various organisations like Pinjra Tod, AAZMI, SIO, SFI, etc through individuals who participated. There was a centrality of JCC in the ecosystem. 23 protest sites were created in Muslim-majority areas close to mosques/majar and close to main roads. The idea was to escalate the protest to chakka-jam, once critical is generated and at an appropriate time to eventually lead to violence against police and then others.
Her counsel had argued that the accused Gulfisha was only participating in the anti-CAA protest which is not a crime. In fact, such protests were happening all across India. The Charge-sheet is silent on the aspect of why the violence took place in Delhi. There were also pro-CAA protests going on, which is not reflected in the contents of the charge sheet but is mentioned in several other FIR registered by Delhi Police in riots cases.