NEW DELHI: In a significant development during the hearing of bail pleas in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, the Delhi High Court on Thursday urged the Delhi Police to condense their arguments.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur emphasised the need for succinct presentations, distinguishing between a bail hearing and a full-fledged trial.
The bench, while interjecting SPP Amit Prasad, said, “How much are you going to take and this way it will not even register much with us. Give a chart.... we are losing you here in between. We just wanted to have a birds-eye view of the evidence you have, not that you are commenting on each and everything like this.”
Highlighting the court’s concern over lengthy submissions, Justice Chawla suggested that a concise chart summarising the evidence be prepared. “Give us what you have against them... If we have to deal with each and everything, we will be running into thousands of pages in a bail application,” he said.
SPP Prasad argued that the accused, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, delivered speeches aimed at inciting fear among the public regarding issues like the National Register of Citizens (NRC), Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), triple talaq, Babri Masjid, and Kashmir. He alleged that Khalid and others deliberately positioned themselves outside Delhi during the riots to avoid implication.
However, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing one of the accused, countered that the evidence presented lacked coherence. “The interconnectivity of evidence in the case is so tenuous that it is difficult to even answer anything,” she argued, adding that her clients have been in custody for nearly five years without substantive progress in their trial.
Justice Chawla noted, “We got lost in between,” emphasising the need for clearer, more focused submissions.
The court, after hearing the arguments, adjourned the matter to January 21, instructing the SPP to submit a concise note summarizing his points.
The bail pleas, including those of Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Khalid Saifi, revolve around the prolonged delay in their trial, with the trial court yet to frame charges. In a previous hearing, the court questioned whether the mere establishment of protest sites against the CAA was sufficient to invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It stressed the importance of establishing intent under UAPA to substantiate the charges.