Umar Khalid bail: Delhi HC ask if 'Jumla' word can be used for PM

New Delhi [India], April 27 : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked whether it is proper to use the word 'jumla' with respect to the Prime Minister and said that there has to be a line or a "Lakshman Rekha" while criticising the government.
The Court asked questions during the hearing of an appeal moved by Umar Khalid challenging the trial court order refusing bail in a larger conspiracy case related to North East Delhi Violence.
The court during the hearing also asked when was this speech of Umar Khalid uploaded to social media? "It's a very carefully crafted speech. Umar Khalid is an intelligent man but the question arises that, is it constitutes a conspiracy to commit the offence," asked the court.
Appearing for Khalid, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais in defence submitted that the common intention was only a peaceful protest not any type of instigation or incitement for any violence. The galvanising of troop idea would have come if this speech was even shared on various WhatsApp groups that are alleged to be active. But it was not done, the lawyer argued.
After hearing the lengthy arguments in the matter, the bench of Justin Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar on Wednesday said, the bench will continue to hear the matter on Thursday.
Earlier, on Tuesday Delhi Police filed its reply copy in the Delhi High Court opposing Umar Khalid's appeal challenging the trial court order refusing bail. Reply said that the trial court rightly dismissed the bail application of the Appellant (Umar Khalid) by a well-reasoned order dealing with each and every speculative argument raised by the Appellant.
Reply copy further submitted that the appeal raises no good grounds for consideration by this Court and thus the same be dismissed, in the interest of justice.
The impugned order passed by Trial Court rightly dismissed the bail application of the Appellant by a well-reasoned order dealing with each and every speculative argument raised by the Appellant. At the cost of repetition, it is humbly submitted that the impugned Order suffers from no illegality which merits interference by this Court, stated reply copy.
Last week, Delhi High Court issued notice to Delhi Police/state on an appeal moved by a former student leader of JNU Umar Khalid, challenging a trial court order refusing bail in a larger conspiracy case related to North East Delhi violence.
Umar Khalid is an accused in northeast Delhi Violence larger conspiracy case. He was arrested on 13 September 2020 under various sections of the IPC and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The Division Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar on Friday sought the response of the investigation agency and listed the matter for April 27, 2022.
The Court also heard the relevant portion of the speech of Umar Khalid and asked, did Shaheed Bhagat and Mahatma Gandhi ever use this language? "We have no problem with permitting free speech but what are you saying? All this is offensive and obnoxious. Don't you think these expressions used are offensive to people? It's almost as if we get an impression that only one community fought for India's independence," the court said.
Appearing for Umar Khalid, Advocate Trideep Pais submitted that the speech was given in Amravati and the Trial Court does not even give a finding that the speech was provocative.
The Trial Court had dismissed the bail plea of Umar Khalid on March 24, 2022. The trial Court judge while dismissing the bail plea said that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against Umar Khalid are prima facie true, hence, the embargo created by Section 43D of UAPA applies for the grant of bail to the accused and also, the embargo contained in Section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The trial court in its order had observed, "It is also important to highlight that in a conspiracy, various continuous acts are committed by different accused persons. One act cannot be read in isolation. At times, if read by itself, a particular act on an activity may appear innocuous, but if it is a part of a chain of events constituting a conspiracy, then all the events must be read together.
The Court had also observed that the accused was part of such WhatsApp groups created for specific objects and his acts or presence throughout the period beginning from the passing of the CAB Bill in December 2019 till the February 2020 riots, has to be read in totality and not piecemeal. He is connected with many accused persons.
The Court had rejected the contention of defence counsel that the accused was not present in Delhi during the time of the riots. In this regard, the Court said that in a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary that every accused should be present on the spot.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad had opposed the bail. He had argued that the Delhi riots 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 Parliaments on 4 December 2019.
SPP had also argued that in this entire conspiracy, there were various organisations like Pinjra Tod, AAZMI, SIO, SFI, etc. through individuals which participated. There was the centrality of JCC in the eco-system.
Amit Prasad had argued Umar Khalid participated in the conspiracy. He had also argued that the case under sections is made out against the accused persons. There is sufficient material on record to establish that the accusation against the accused Umar Khalid is prima facie true and hence bail application of the accused may be dismissed.
This case pertains to large scale violence in Northeast Delhi in which 53 people had lost their lives and hundreds were injured.