NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to former JNU student Umar Khalid, in custody for over two years, in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the riots in February 2020, saying he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him are prima facie true. The court said the actions of the accused prima facie qualified as ‘terrorist act’ under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act UAPA.
A bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul said the anti-CAA protests ‘metamorphosed into violent riots’, which prima facie seemed to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings, and the statements of the witnesses indicate Khalid’s ‘active involvement’ in the protests.
While rejecting his bail, the bench said that there appears to be a premeditated conspiracy for causing disruptive chakka-jam and pre-planned protests at different locations in Delhi, which was engineered to escalate to confrontational chakka-jam and incitement to violence and culminate in riots in natural course on specific dates.
“The appellant (Khalid) was in constant touch with other co-accused persons, including Sharjeel Imam, who arguably is at the head of the conspiracy; at this stage, it is difficult to form an opinion that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie not proved,” observed the bench.
In its order, the court observed that the ‘planned protests’ were not the kind that are ‘normal in political culture or democracy (but were) far more destructive and injurious geared towards extremely grave consequences’ and the acts of the accused prima facie qualified as ‘terrorist act’ under UAPA.
‘Agnipath makes national security impenetrable’
Responding to petitions assailing ‘Agnipath’, the Centre told the Delhi High Court there is no legal infirmity in the scheme for recruitment in the armed forces which was introduced in exercise of its sovereign function to make national security and defence more ‘robust, and impenetrable’ with the changing military requirement. The Centre’s stand came on a consolidated counter affidavit filed in response to several petitions against the Agnipath scheme