Delhi High Court on Tuesday (2nd September) rejected the bail pleas filed by the Delhi anti-Hindu riots accused, Athar Khan, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khadil Saifi and Saleem Khan. The High Court noted that, prima facie, it appeared that all four of the accused (appellants) played an active role in the conspiracy that led to the riots.
Accused involved in the creation of protest sites
In its order, accessed by OpIndia, a division bench of Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur noted that the accused were involved in creating protest sites at various places in the national capital, including at Khureji, Chand Bagh, Karawal Nagar, Kardam Nagar, and Nizamuddin. Besides, they planned to escalate violence by using materials like sticks, broken glass, acid, rods, etc.
After perusal of the evidence put forth by the prosecution and the statements of witnesses, the Court added that there existed prima facie evidence to show that the accused took part in various meetings wherein they conspired to perpetuate violence against the policemen and non-Muslims.
Athar Khan and Shadab Khan destroyed CCTV cameras
According to the High Court, Athar Khan and Shadab Khan agreed to destroy or cover Government-installed-CCTV cameras so that they could operate “fearlessly”. The instructions to destroy the CCTV cameras were also given to Salim Khan and another co-accused, Salim Malik. Salim Khan was captured in a CCTV footage dislocating a camera with a stick-like object.
Abdul Khalid Saifi raised and collected funds for the protests
The Court noted that apart from being a part of many WhatsApp groups and conspiratorial meetings, Abdul Khalid Saifi was also involved in raising and collecting funds for arranging guns and “managing protest sites”. Refraining from examining the evidence and the statements of witnesses in detail, the High Court concluded that all the members involved in the conspiracy behind the anti-Hindu riots, including the four accused, were assigned specific roles to further the conspiracy.
“We may note that, at the stage of consideration of a bail application, it would be impermissible in law to enter into the merits or demerits of the evidence produced by the prosecution on record, which can only be tested at the trial,” the court said.
The High Court distinguished between multiple FIRs against the accused
The court rejected the argument of the accused Saleem Khan, who contended that he was being subjected to multiple proceedings under different FIRs, based on the same evidence and overlapping narratives. The court clarified that the different FIRs against the accused were on a different footing and that the FIR in the current case relates to a larger conspiracy.
The High Court rejected the claim of parity
Dismissing the claim of the accused to be treated at par with the other accused in the case, namely, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were able to secure bail by the High Court, the Court remarked that the role played by the present Appellants is distinct from the said co-accused persons who were let out on bail. “In our careful consideration, having regard to the totality of factsand circumstances as noted hereinabove, these appeals fail,” the court noted in its order.