NEW DELHI: Former JNU student Umar Khalid, an alleged accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, argued before the Delhi High Court on Friday that there is no direct evidence linking him to violence or fundraising activities. Represented by senior advocate Trideep Pais, Khalid’s counsel emphasised the lack of physical or circumstantial evidence against him and sought bail based on prolonged incarceration as an undertrial.
The arguments were presented before a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur.
The bench was hearing bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid and Meeran Haider, who sought relief on grounds of parity, prolonged incarceration, and trial delays. The division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur listened to their arguments, while the Delhi Police requested additional time to respond. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on December 12.
Concluding his submissions, Pais highlighted the parity Khalid sought with four co-accused who had already been granted bail in the same case.
Pais argued that no materials, disclosures, or physical evidence connected Khalid to the riots. “There is no mention of me in the FIRs [of 2020 violence], no recovery, and no allegations of a terrorist act or violence on my part,” Pais stated. He added that Khalid was discharged in the only FIR where his name had initially appeared. The sole overt act attributed to Khalid was a speech in Amravati, Maharashtra, which, Pais argued, was peaceful and invoked Gandhian principles of non-violence.
“The speech does not incite violence. The prosecution has cherry-picked a selective clip to create an outrage,” he said.
The prosecution cited WhatsApp group conversations and alleged meetings to substantiate the conspiracy charges.
However, Pais dismissed these claims, saying Khalid’s involvement in these groups was minimal. “In one group, I merely shared the location of a protest site. In another instance, I relayed a police officer’s request to call off a protest during Donald Trump’s Delhi visit,” he clarified.
Regarding the alleged meetings, Pais pointed out inconsistencies, noting that some accused were not physically present, while others, including activist Yogendra Yadav, were not charged. “There is no preparation for violence mentioned in the statements,” he added, referring to the prosecution’s evidence.