"Umar Khalid was in habit of creating narrative on media and social media": Delhi Police to court

It was also submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor that several people took to X (earlier Twitter) to influence bail hearings. He referred to the post on X by Teesta Seetalvad, Amnesty India, Akar Patel, Raj Kaushik, Swati Chaturvedi, Arju Ahmed and others.

The special judge also heard rebuttal arguments by Senior Advocate Tridip Pais, who appeared for Umar Khalid. After hearing the submissions, the court listed the matter for further arguments on April 24 at 10 am.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), while opposing the bail application of Umar Khalid, referred to his WhatsApp chats.

The SPP submitted, "WhatsApp chats also revealed that he is in the habit of creating media and social media narratives at the time of listing bail applications of people booked in cases to clearly influence bail hearings."

"Similar exercise is being adopted while the applicant's bails are being listed to influence his bail hearings, samples of posts on X (earlier Twitter) with a hashtag about the applicant annexed herewith," SPP added.

"Thus, in light of the aforesaid, the present second application for the grant of bail to the accused deserves to be dismissed by this honourable court in the interest of justice," SPP Prasad submitted.

SPP Amit Prasad also mentioned the Post on Twitter by Teesta Satelvad, Aakar Patel, Kaushik Raj, Swati Chaturvedi, Arju Ahmed and others.

SPP read some of the tweets in court. One of the tweets read "Ram Raheem''s parole approved, Umar Khalid bail 14 times adjourned in SC. #freeumarkhalid

"Umar Khalid withdraws his bail petition from SC. This is a travesty of Justice," another tweet read

SPP submitted that Amnesty India also tweeted, which read, "SC has adjourned hearing his bail hearing 14 times. Acute Subversion of the right of Umar Khalid to get bail. "#freeUmarKhalid was used," the SPP submitted.

The SPP argued that while they claim that they were subjected to media trial, it is he who was playing around with the media. His father gave interviews in the media and people associated with him also did the same.

In his rebuttal arguments, Senior Advocate Tridip Pais argued that mere meetings of accused individuals don't imply terrorism.

None of the witnesses didn't say anything but then miraculously said something two weeks later. All the witnesses here seem to be taking tablets for memory. Prima facie requires depth, not frivolously reading out the chargesheet, Pais argued.

Senior advocate Pais submitted that the prosecution argument is that I (Umar Khalid) can fain tension. Therefore, I don't deserve bail. His father gave an interview; therefore, he doesn't deserve bail.

While arguing, the senior advocate referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, Shoma Sen and Varnan Gonsalves.

It was submitted that the allegations should be good enough to establish that they are substantive enough to reject the bail. The duty of the court is not to deal with the material meticulously but to see the broad probability, the senior advocate added.

The senior advocate further argued that the prosecution relied on seven documents.

On the point of the terrorist activity aspect, it was submitted that there is no evidence to show it is a terrorist activity. There is nothing on record to attract Section 15 of the UAPA.

"There is a misreading of watali by the trial court as well as the High Court. Both the court's decisions so far rely on Watali. Something has been stated in the charge sheet. They have considered it enough.

The High Court and the Special Court haven't distinguished between the acts or persons. They've just painted everything with a broad brush. There is not a single witness whose statement attracts 15(1) qua me (Umar Khalid).

On the point of Umar Khalid, the defence counsel rejected the prosecution's arguments that meetings were secret ones.

He said that Umar Khalid, Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi met at the office of PFI and have been referred by the prosecution on the basis of the statement of a witness, CDR.

"You want to rely on CDR to deny me bail, Pais questioned. As per CDR, they were not there at the given time and date, he argued.

He further argued that there is no credible case of conspiracy, which is also not terror activity. There is no seizure from me, which can attract the offence of terror activity.

"On the whimsical statement, sometimes even without witnesses, an act of terrorism is foisted on me, Pais submitted.

It was also said that Bangladeshi women and children were deployed at the protest sites. Pais questioned: "Did any women say that it was against me?".

In the Varnan Gonsalves and Shoma Sen case, the views of the Supreme Court on prima facie and analysis of prima facie have been clarified, defence counsel argued.

Pais argued that at the time of hearing bail, the court was under a duty to scan the case diary to decide whether the allegations were prima facie true or not. Third-party hearsay can not be attributed to me.

Just having a meeting is not enough to oppose the bail. There is no material as of now. The bail cannot be denied, as the material can come later, Pais argued.

If ten witnesses state my name, does that make a terror case against me? I have not indulged in a terrorist act. There is not even a seizure from me, Pais submitted. (ANI)