NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged broader conspiracy behind the 2020 communal riots in Delhi, stating that violent public demonstrations exceed the constitutional right to protest and constitute punishable offences.
A bench led by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, in a ruling uploaded on Tuesday, found that there was substantial material to indicate that the accused, Salim Malik, who allegedly instigated the locals in the name of religion to disrupt harmony, was a co-conspirator in a “deep-rooted conspiracy”.
The court pointed out that “secular names/Hindu names” were given to protest sites to give them the appearance of a secular protest. Their aim was to escalate protests into “chakka jam” and lead the crowd to commit acts of violence.
According to the court’s observation, meetings held on 20/21 February 2020 in Chand Bagh and again on 22/23 February 2020 were attended by Malik and other accused. During these meetings, discussions included plans for riot-like violence, the burning of Delhi, and the use of petrol bombs. The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain, noted discussions about obtaining funds, procuring arms, and damaging CCTV cameras in the area.
“The perpetrators and conspirators of such riots had learnt a lesson from the riots which had earlier taken place in December 2019. These had similar characteristics and modus operandi, albeit on a lower scale. The objective of the conspirators was to escalate protests to chakka jam and once crowd in large number was mobilised, lead and incite them against the police and others,” the court added in its order passed on April 22.
The court cited Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which creates a significant barrier to bail in such cases, finding that the accusations against Malik were “prima facie true.”
Malik, arrested in June 2020, had challenged an October 2022 trial court decision denying him bail in the UAPA case. His defense, led by senior advocate Salman Khurshid, claimed that Malik was merely a cook overseeing the kitchen backstage and did not incite violence. However, the prosecution argued that Malik actively participated in the riots, was part of unlawful assemblies, and played a role in destroying or covering CCTV cameras.
The court dismissed Malik’s bail plea, underscoring the deep-rooted conspiracy behind the riots, noting that the violence involved attacks on police and paramilitary forces, destruction of public and private property, and the use of various weapons and explosives.
The court also referenced an earlier Supreme Court judgment indicating that public demonstrations become punishable when they turn violent, causing harm to public and private property and endangering lives.
The court clarified that at this initial stage when the trial court is yet to ascertain the charges, the statements of witnesses have to be taken at their face value.
The court stressed that, at this preliminary stage, with the trial court yet to assess the charges, the statements of witnesses must be taken at face value.
It added that the Special Public Prosecutor had presented supplementary evidence indicating that rioters, within minutes of disconnecting CCTV cameras, committed violent acts that led to the death of Head Constable Rattan Lal and caused severe injuries to other police officers.