Criticising govt policy is not an act against integrity and sovereignty of country, argues Tahir Hussain

It is alleged that these incidents were a result of larger conspiracy under UAPA.

Karkardooma Court is hearing arguements on framing of charges. This case has been registered under stringent anti terror law UAPA. Former AAP MCD councillor Tahir Hussain's counsel Rajiv Mohan advanced his arguements.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai after hearing the submissions listed the matter for further hearing on Thursday.

During the hearing Advocate Rajiv Mohan alongwith Rishabh Bhati argued that Delhi police special cell to establish the offences of terror activities argued the all the rioting incidents were part of the larger Conspiracy which is subject of the present FIR.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan further argued that in none of the 765 FIR related to rioting, Delhi police have alleged any terrorist activity. Now it cannot be said that those incident were Terrorist act and result of any alleged conspiracy.

It was further argued that no offence of terror activities is made out in this case as the organisation to which the accused persons were associated, had not been declared terror or unlawful organisation by the government.

To constitute an offence of terror activities against a person, he has to be member of terror outfit or act should be detrimental to the safety and security of the country, the counsel argued.

It was also argued that an offence under the law of UAPA can't be constituted on the confessional statement of accused as they are not admissible.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued that protected witness Mike was privy to the information about Conspiracy of riots, still he concealed the same. He should be booked for intentionally omitting information.

On October 21, it was argued that the other riots cases for which Cognizance taken of for the offence of rioting can't be called a result of larger Conspiracy under UAPA.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan submitted that Delhi police registered 765 FIR for the offences of rioting etc. took place in 2020.

On the last date, he had submitted that out of those 765 FIRs, the concerned court has already taken cognizance of under sections related to rioting etc.

No court took cognizance for the terrorist activity under UAPA. In this light those offences and cases can't be called a result of larger conspiracy under UAPA.

It was further argued that the statement of protected witness Mike can't be relied upon as it cannot be recorded as a statement of witness.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan elaborated that as per Prosecution version Mike had stated that he had information since May 2019 that a conspiracy of riots being hatched. Still he withheld the information and not disclosed it before the police.

"In this situation, Mike had committed the offence of concealment of information related to a prospective crime. Therefore his statement can't be recorded as witness under section 161 Cr.PC." Rajiv Mohan argued.

He further argued that it is not the case of Delhi Police that these riots were act of terrorism. Still a case was registered under anti Terror law UAPA.

This case pertains to alleged larger Conspiracy of Delhi riots 2020. In this case around 20 people including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Husain and others including Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita are accused.

On March 30, 2024, the court had dismissed the regular bail application of Tahir Hussain.

The accused was arrested in the present FIR on 06.04.2020. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 16.09.2020.

The Court had dismissed the bail plea of Tahir Husain in view of bar under UAPA and role attributed to him as per statment of witnesses.

" Thus, in view of the facts as discussed above and the bar under Section 43(D)(5) of UA(P)A, the Court does not find the case of the applicant to be a fit case for granting bail," the court said in the order passed on March 30.

The Court had said that in the case in hand, after going through the record, the Court is of the view that the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.

The court said, "As far as the role of the applicant as shown by the prosecution is concerned, record shows that the applicant while participating in the conspiracy, not only funded the activities of the riots but also participated in the other activities which led to the riots."

The court had also said that the statements of some prosecution witnesses as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and other material on record clearly shows the role of the present applicant.

The Court had also said that One of the prosecution witnesses is Rahul Kasana who clearly stated the role of the applicant regarding distribution of money to the protesters in order to make preparations for the riots, meeting of the present applicant with the other co-accused persons.

The Court also said, "It is also on record that the applicant got released his licenced revolver just two days before the alleged incidents and used the same, as 22 spent or used cartridges were recovered from his house."

Besides this, allegedly the applicant got converted approximately Rs 1.5 crore in cash, which was used in the rioting and the said fact has been confirmed through the statements of different witnesses and examination of relevant bank accounts, the court said.

It was also contended by the Counsel for the applicant that the alleged acts of the applicant cannot be termed as terrorist act and do not constitute the offences under Section 13,16, 17 & 18 of UA(P)A.

The Court said that it is not in agreement with this contention of the Counsel. Definition of'Terrorist Act' as provided under Section 15 of the UA(P)A clearly shows that even if some inflammable substance, fire arms, lethal weapons are used which is likely to cause death or injury to any person or causes loss, damage or destruction to any property, such act would fall in the definition of Terrorist Act.

"In the case in hand, the allegations against the applicant, as mentioned earlier are such that his acts may fall in the definition of Terrorist act. As such, at this stage, it cannot be said that the provisions of UA(P)A as mentioned in the charge-sheet are not applicable to the applicant," the court had held. (ANI)