2022 Supreme(Del) 2190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ.
Umar Khalid - Appellant
Versus
State of National Capital Territory of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 173 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2022

The court held that the allegations against the Appellant are “prima facie true” and hence, the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies squarely with regard to the consideration of grant of bail to the Appellant.

Headnote:

Appellant challenged the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Amitabh Rawat, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, Karkardooma District court (Shahdara district), Delhi, whereby the Appellant’s Application for grant of Regular Bail was dismissed in case FIR No. 59/2020, PS. Crime Branch (investigated by the special cell) registered under section 120B read with 124A, 302, 207, 353, 186, 212, 395, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 109, 114, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP) Act, 1984, Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (hereinafter, UAPA).

Fact of the Case:

The Appellant was arrested on 13.09.2020 by the Investigating agency, having joined after being called for investigation. The first charge-sheet came to be filed on 16.09.2020 against 15 accused persons. The Ld. Sessions Court, vide order dated 17.09.2020, took cognizance of all offences mentioned in the said charge-sheet against the said 15 accused persons, except Sections 124A/153A/109/120B which requires sanction from the State Government. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 22.11.2020 against three accused persons including the present Appellant, who has been named as Accused No. 18. The Ld. Sessions Court took cognizance of all offences elaborated in the supplementary charge-sheet dated 22.11.2020 vide order dated 24.11.2020, except offences under Sections 124A, 153A, 109 and 120-B of the IPC which required sanction from the State Government. Further, a second supplementary charge-sheet was filed in the present FIR on 23.02.2021, pertaining primarily to technological evidence related to offences stated in the FIR in question.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned order of the Ld. Session Judge dated 24.03.2022 does not warrant any interference by this Court and is sustained. As a sequel thereto, the Appeal is dismissed. Further, on the in depth and considered perusal of the chargesheet, the accompanying documents and in view of the discussions herein above, only for the limited purpose of the present bail; this court expresses the inescapable conclusion that allegations against the Appellant are “prima facie true” and hence, the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies squarely with regard to the consideration of grant of bail to the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant’s application seeking regular bail is rejected.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order needs any interjection in view of the Appeal filed by the Appellant under section 21(4) of the NIA Act and (ii) as to whether the Appellant in view of the material on records is entitled to the regular Bail.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Appellant was a member of the WhatsApp group of Muslim students of JNU. He participated in various meetings at Jantar Mantar, Jangpura Office, Shaheen Bagh, Seelampur, Jaffrabad and Indian Social Institute on various dates. He was a member of the DPSG group. He referred to the visit of the president of USA to India in his Amrawati Speech. The CDR analysis depicts that there had been a flurry of calls that happened post riots amongst the appellant and other co-accused. The cumulative statement of the protected witnesses indicates the presence and active involvement of the appellant in the protests, engineered against the CAA/NRC. Admittedly these protests metamorphosed into violent riots in February 2020, which began by firstly choking public roads, then violently and designedly attacking policemen and random members of the public, whereat firearms, acid bottles, stones etc. were used, resulting in the admitted and sad loss of 53 precious lives and the destruction of property worth several Crores. These protests & riots prima-facie seem to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings held from December, 2019 till February, 2020. 2. The court further held that the name of the appellant finds recurring mention from the beginning of the conspiracy till the culmination of the ensuing riots. Admittedly, he was a member of the WhatsApp group of Muslim students of JNU. He participated in various meetings at Jantar Mantar, Jangpura Office, Shaheen Bagh, Seelampur, Jaffrabad and Indian Social Institute on various dates. He was a member of the DPSG group. He referred to the visit of the president of USA to India in his Amrawati Speech. The CDR analysis depicts that there had been a flurry of calls that happened post riots amongst the appellant and other co-accused. The cumulative statement of the protected witnesses indicates the presence and active involvement of the appellant in the protests, engineered against the CAA/NRC. Admittedly these protests metamorphosed into violent riots in February 2020, which began by firstly choking public roads, then violently and designedly attacking policemen and random members of the public, whereat firearms, acid bottles, stones etc. were used, resulting in the admitted and sad loss of 53 precious lives and the destruction of property worth several Crores. These protests & riots prima-facie seem to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings held from December, 2019 till February, 2020.

Final Decision: The impugned order of the Ld. Session Judge dated 24.03.2022 does not warrant any interference by this Court and is sustained. As a sequel thereto, the Appeal is dismissed. Further, on the in depth and considered perusal of the chargesheet, the accompanying documents and in view of the discussions herein above, only for the limited purpose of the present bail; this court expresses the inescapable conclusion that allegations against the Appellant are “prima facie true” and hence, the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies squarely with regard to the consideration of grant of bail to the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant’s application seeking regular bail is rejected.