Umar Khalid's Defense Cites Pattern of Alleged Evidence Fabrication in Delhi Riots Cases

NEW DELHI – In a significant hearing concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case, the defense for former JNU scholar Umar Khalid has presented a powerful argument against the framing of charges, alleging a systemic pattern of evidence fabrication by the Delhi Police. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, drew the court's attention to a series of acquittals in related riots cases where trial courts explicitly found that evidence had been manipulated by the prosecution.

The submissions were made before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Delhi's Karkardooma Courts, as the defense continues to contest the charges laid out in FIR 59/2020. This FIR, investigated by the Delhi Police's special cell, forms the basis of the larger conspiracy case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

---

A Troubling Pattern of Acquittals

The cornerstone of the defense's argument is the track record of the Delhi Police in securing convictions for the riots. Pais highlighted that out of approximately 750 cases related to the 2020 violence, there have been 93 acquittals. More critically, he emphasized the court's findings in a significant subset of these cases.

"As of now out of the 750 cases to my knowledge, there have been 93 acquittals. And in 17 of those cases, the sessions judges have concluded that there has been fabrication of evidence, imaginary witnesses and lack of any basis,” Pais stated before the court.

This assertion aims to cast serious doubt on the credibility of the evidence presented against Khalid in the UAPA case. By referencing judicial orders from different judges that have pointed to fabricated evidence and a lack of basis for implication, the defense is attempting to establish that the investigation in the larger conspiracy case may be tainted by the same alleged malpractices.

Questioning the Conspiracy Narrative

Senior Advocate Pais meticulously dissected the prosecution's theory of conspiracy, challenging the very foundation of Khalid's inclusion as a key conspirator. He pointed out a fundamental inconsistency in the chargesheet: several individuals who were allegedly central to protest organization and communication, and with whom Khalid is said to have "connectivity," have not been named as accused in the UAPA case.

He referred to individuals like Nadeem Khan, Saif ul Islam, Apeksha, Shehnawaz, and Yogendra Nadav, who were active in the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) but are not co-accused. This selective prosecution, Pais argued, undermines the entire conspiracy charge against his client.

"If you are saying I have connectivity…. Please see the flaw in the chargesheet. If I have connectivity, why on earth they are not accused with me? And if they are not accused, why am I?" he argued, questioning the logic of the prosecution's case.

The defense characterized the voluminous chargesheet not as a document pointing to guilt but as an elaborate piece of "storytelling" that reflects the "opinion the police has." This line of argument directly challenges the legal sufficiency of the chargesheet to establish a prima facie case for framing charges under UAPA.

Another critical point raised was the timing of witness statements. Pais submitted that key witnesses against Khalid seemed to "miraculously appear" only after his arrest, sometimes six to eight months later, raising questions about their authenticity and potential for coercion.

Legal Context: The High Bar of UAPA

The case against Umar Khalid and others is framed under the UAPA, a statute that makes bail exceedingly difficult to obtain. Section 43D(5) of the Act states that bail shall not be granted if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report, "is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

This high threshold is precisely what makes the arguments against the framing of charges so crucial. If the defense can successfully demonstrate that the chargesheet is based on flawed, fabricated, or insufficient evidence, it could prevent the trial from proceeding.

Khalid, arrested on September 13, 2020, has been in custody for over four years. His bail was denied by a division bench of the Delhi High Court on September 2, which observed that prima facie, his role in the alleged conspiracy was "grave." The High Court noted that he and co-accused Sharjeel Imam had delivered "inflammatory speeches on communal lines" to instigate mass mobilization. Khalid has since challenged this denial before the Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled for October 27.

The defense's current strategy appears to be a multi-pronged attack: while pursuing the bail matter in the Supreme Court, it is simultaneously challenging the very basis of the case at the trial court level. By highlighting judicial findings of evidence fabrication in parallel cases, the defense is implicitly asking the court to apply a higher level of scrutiny to the police's narrative in this politically charged UAPA case.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on October 08, where the arguments are expected to continue. The outcome of these proceedings will be closely watched by the legal community, as it holds significant implications for the principles of criminal justice, prosecutorial accountability, and the application of anti-terror laws in cases involving political dissent.