New Delhi: Rebutting the prosecution's allegations against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid in the UAPA case related to the Delhi riots of 2020, his lawyer on Friday submitted in court that the accusations were made in thin air, adding that the chargesheet cannot be a narrative without any basis.
Notably, senior advocate Trideep Pais, for Umar, also highlighted the selective reading of WhatsApp group chats and other protest meetings to drive home the point that the police are choosing only a select few people of these and accusing them of conspiracy based on these while letting others go.
This argument has been common among all accused, who are now seeking bail in the case, as noted by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat in court on Friday.
On specific allegations made by the Special Public Prosecutor against Umar, Pais told the court that there were no witnesses of the alleged meeting between Umar and Sharjeel Imam and said there was no basis for this assertion, adding that the chargesheet is replete with such assertions "made in thin air".
"A chargesheet cannot be a narrative without a basis. The supplementary chargesheet is without a basis," Pais submitted.
Noting the points made about Umar's presence in groups that were planning protests and meetings held for the same, Pais argued, "He is present at the meeting. No criminality. No members speak of conspiracy. Several others who attended are not arrested..." He also went on to allegations about Umar's visit to Jamia, "There is no criminality in going to Jamia. Thousands go to that area. No allegation of violence attributed to me."
But with the prosecution insisting that the investigation was still underway and that they are identifying the roles of multiple suspects slowly, Pais argued that this was not an acceptable answer.
"We are talking about February, 2020. You cannot say Umar and others were there in the meeting. You have to show what is the qualitative difference in action of me and others. I am in custody… This is not a civil suit… You choose to emphasise on one person and arrest that person," Umar's lawyer said, taking the court back to earlier arguments about the lack of credibility of the witnesses statements cited by the prosecution.
Significantly, Pais also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to address the multiple discrepancies he had noted in the witness statements in earlier submissions.
Going on to drive the point that the chargesheet made assertions without a basis, Pais argued, "Pure imagination of the prosecution. You first want to make a story and then make evidence to complete that story... It (Meetings) was given a colour of criminality. On WhatsApp four messages, one of which was giving direction. Even if that meeting did take place. and I took part in it, there is nothing criminal."