The student activist's lawyer argued that relying solely on prosecution statements would render the case ineffective
NEW DELHI – Umar Khalid, noted student activist and a Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar, asserted here that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case against him would “fall flat” as the Delhi Police had relied on witness statements recorded nearly a year after his arrest instead of producing cogent evidence.
Khalid has spent over five years in detention for his alleged involvement in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which resulted in significant loss of life, particularly among Muslims.
Khalid’s submissions were made by his lawyer, senior advocate Trideep Pais, before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma courts here on Friday.
The case relates to FIR 59 of 2020 investigated by Delhi Police’s special cell. The UAPA case alleges a larger conspiracy in the commission of the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
“You can catch hold of anyone 11 months after the event, get them to say anything and that’s a UAPA case. The case of the prosecution is that I don’t need evidence. I need statements. This is a case of no physical evidence. Other than the speech,” Pais said.
The lawyer argued that relying solely on prosecution statements would render the case ineffective, leaving it stagnant.
“If you have statements only, where will the case go? It will go nowhere. It will remain in the manner in which it has been in the last five years. We will take this Alpha, Beta, Gamma (protected witnesses) and examine them? Where will we get? It is not a case which should have proceeded as an FIR even,” he argued.
Pais reiterated his submissions that there is no recovery or physical evidence in relation to Khalid. He added that there is no allegation of procurement of funds against Khalid. “751 FIRs, I am not an accused except one,” he said.
Furthermore, Pais contended that the timing of recording of statements against Khalid by the prosecution was “extremely suspicious”, as they were recorded months or even a year after his arrest.
“Normally there should be some kind of evidence before the FIR is registered. I am not saying that you cannot register an FIR if you have evidence. But you have named me and called it a conspiracy….,” he said.
The matter will continue to be heard on October 28 and 29.
Earlier, Pais submitted that the Delhi Police indulged in “pick and choose” action and only named Khalid as an accused in the case, while leaving various other individuals, including some who are attributed “bigger role” in the chargesheet.
Pais had flagged fabrication of evidence found by the trial court in 17 Delhi riots cases, out of the 93 cases which resulted in acquittals. – With inputs from Agencies
