3 min readNew DelhiDec 14, 2022 08:48 AM IST
First published on: Dec 14, 2022 at 08:48 AM IST
Gulfisha Fatima, an activist booked by the Delhi Police in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, told the Delhi High Court Tuesday that the prosecution was relying on “unpardoned accused masquerading as witnesses against her”. Arguing for bail before a special bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar, Gulfisha said all the witnesses had participated in the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and attended meetings related to the agitation.
“Not one of them went to the police at the relevant time. Only when the police started issuing notices to these persons and they were summoned, that they gave their statements, minimising their own role,” her counsel told the court.
Gulfisha has been booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment (UAPA) Act.
“Every single one of them is an unpardoned accused masquerading as a witness against me,” Gulfisha’s counsel said, referring to the example of a former witness who was later booked as an accused by the Delhi Police for his role in the riots.
The counsel requested the court to take into account the conduct of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution while deciding Gulfisha’s bail plea. “I’m saying that the court can go one step ahead… two things can happen, either the statements can be taken as it is, or it can be seen if the statements are reasonably believable,” the counsel said.
The counsel also claimed there were no witnesses in the case who didn’t have a role in the anti-CAA protests.
With respect to the statement of a witness on the speech given by Umar Khalid on January 24, 2020 in Seelampur, where he allegedly said local women have to be encouraged to be mobilised, the counsel argued that there was nothing ascribed to his client as she merely heard the speech because she was present there and that this did not show she ascribed to or was in agreement with Khalid.
Referring to another witness statement on the chakka jam at Jafrabad on February 22, 2020, the counsel said that all he was able to surmise was that Fatima was leading a protest at Seelampur and that there was nothing really culpable against her.
The counsel also argued that the High Court cannot rule out the possibility that the witness statements, which were taken several months after her arrest in April 2020 and after the riots in February 2020, may have been tailored.
With respect to the allegation that Gulfisha distributed red chilli powder, sticks and bottles to women protestors at Jafrabad, her counsel said none of the electronic evidence on record, including photographs and videos as well as the MLC (a medical examination) of the hurt individuals, supports the case that these materials were ever used.
In response to the allegation that his client was on the run, the counsel said Gulfisha was arrested on April 2020 from her own house. He explained that she was booked in another FIR a month earlier, in March 2020, when she was sitting in protest in Jafrabad and therefore, if she had been on the run, she would have been hiding somewhere and not found sitting at a protest site.
The matter will next be heard on December 14.
Gulfisha has been booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment (UAPA) Act.
(File) 
Share
