Abdul Khalid Saifi and several other accused sought bail on the grounds of equality and long imprisonment
New Delhi: On the basis of equity and their extended detention in jail, Gulfisha Fatima, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and a number of other defendants in the broader conspiracy case pertaining to the Delhi Riots have requested bail. The Delhi High Court is still considering their bail requests.
The defense attorneys for Gulfisha Fatima, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Shifa Ur Rehman, and others presented partial arguments before a division bench made up of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur. Parity and extended custody were the main points of contention for the attorneys.
A follow-up hearing on their appeal has been scheduled for December 6. Sharjeel Imam’s appeal has been scheduled for hearing on December 12. ASG S.V. Raju and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad represented the Delhi Police.
Kapil Sibal, a senior counsel, represented Gulfisha Fatima. He maintained that Fatima ought to be released on the same terms as Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who had both been released on bond in comparable situations.
“There is nothing on record regarding the actual involvement in riots,” Sibal said.
The allegation of parity, according to senior attorney Sibal, is quite limited, and the more general plea is that Gulfisha Fatima has been imprisoned for 4.5 years.
Rebecca John, a senior attorney, represented Abdul Khalid Saifi. According to her, there are over 700 examples. This instance of a broader conspiracy is independent. Each person is the target of a distinct case. Rebecca John brought up the fact that Saifi had been released in a prior riot case in 2020 and that this release had not been contested. He is still facing two more cases.
Senior attorney John argued that the Delhi police were to blame for the delay. It submitted four supplemental charge sheets in addition to one charge sheet. They arrayed fresh defendants with each charge sheet, and copies were given to each defendant.
In the broader conspiracy case, there are 897 prosecution witnesses. Additionally, the senior lawyer argued that Abdul Saifi is on an equal footing with the accused Natasha, Devangana, and Asif Iqbal Tanha.
“The Khureji protest site was allegedly organized by Abdul Saifi, according to the submission. Violence did not occur at the Khureji protest location,” she said. I, Saifi, was connected to UAH. At the demonstration location, there were no disturbances. “Two women and gentlemen were assigned a far higher role than mine,” the Senior Advocate argued.
No weapon had been recovered. She stated that the officers brutally assaulted Saifi.
The Khajuri protest location allegedly had the potential to develop into east Delhi’s Shahin Bagh.
Paradoxically, neither the mastermind nor the individuals they depended on have been taken into custody.
The police’s submission of supplemental charge sheets created a great deal of delay. Delaying the trial benefits any accused person who is in detention. A senior attorney argued that my right to bail and a prompt trial had been violated.
Salman Khurshid, a senior counsel, represented accused Shifa Ur Rehman, the former president of Jamia Mililia University.
Khurshid emphasized that Rehman had no involvement in the purported meetings or activities connected to the wider plot and that his sole affiliation was as president of the Jamia Millia University Alumni Association.
“Devangana and Asif are on bail,” said Salman Khurshid. Asif belonged to the Association of Old Students, or JCC. Shifa belonged to JCC. He was added as the Alumni President, but he was not allowed to take part.
“Asif, who was an ISO member, met with Umar and Sharjeel. In addition to not meeting with them, Shifa Ur Rahman did not provide any SIM cards to the other accused individuals. In his submission, he said, “No money trail has been found against Shifa ur Rehman.”
“Whether there was a larger conspiracy or not is a subject of trial,” the senior attorney said. Shifa didn’t attend any secret meetings.
Mohd. Saleem Khan’s attorney said that despite being granted temporary release three times, he has not posed a danger to witnesses.
Counsel claimed that there is a separate FIR for the claims that he turned the camera.
The court recognized the seriousness of the broader conspiracy accusations upon hearing the arguments. The defense countered that extended detention was unnecessary and that many of the charges were still pending trial.
According to the Delhi Police, 53 people were killed and hundreds more were wounded during the 2020 riots.
