Umar Khalid bail case: No terror case is made out, repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth, his counsel argues
Apr 24, 2024
New Delhi [India], April 24 : Former JNU student leader Umar Khalid's counsel on Wednesday argued that no terror case is made against him and that his name was repeated in the charge sheet of Delhi police.
Repeating his name does not make a lie, a truth. There was a vicious media trial taking place against him, the counsel said.
The court is dealing with the bail plea of the former JNU student leader who is accused in the larger conspiracy case of Delhi riots under anti-terror law UAPA.
Special judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court heard the arguments of senior advocate Tridip Pais and granted ten days to file written submissions. The matter has been listed on May 7 for hearing.
It is alleged by the Delhi police that Umar Khalid had pre-planned protests in 2020 at 23 sites that culminated into riots.
After withdrawing his bail plea from the Supreme Court in February, Khalid moved to trial court, seeking bail on the grounds of a change in circumstances and parity with other accused persons.
Senior advocate Tridip Pais questioned the submissions of Delhi police, "Is sharing messages a criminal or terrorist act?"
He was responding to submissions earlier made by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), who had said that Khalid was amplifying his narrative as part of a conspiracy by sharing certain links with people from politics and others on social media. Pais argued that Umar Khalid was sharing the 'correct narrative'.
The senior advocate also submitted that there was a vicious media trial taking place against Umar Khalid. He also referred to various statements by news anchors from different media channels. He said that anchors were reading from the charge sheet around the clock.
He further argued that no terror case is made against Umar Khalid and the police have no material to this effect. The court must see whether a terror case is made against him or not.
There are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, Pais added. In this situation, the court must determine whether a witness statement prima facie makes a terror case against Umar Khalid.
Earlier, it was argued that the accused persons, namely Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, were granted bail by the High Court. They had a similar role to that of Umar Khalid.
