Why Umar Khalid, 8 others were denied bail: Delhi HC flags WhatsApp activity, fundraising

The bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed Sharjeel Imam’s argument that he was in custody at the time of riots. The bench instead took note of the prosecution’s allegation that “all the initial planning, creation of groups, conceptualisation, and incitement regarding the CAA-NRC [Citizenship (Amendment) Act-National Register of Citizens] had been completed by that point”.

Emphasising on the creation of two WhatsApp groups by activist Gulfisha Fatima in December 2019 to mobilise women, the court noted: “The groups that the appellant allegedly created… one noticeably revolve around coordination in protests and ensuring that as many women participate in the protests. This factum of creation of these two groups cannot be seen in isolation, the consideration should weigh in on broad probabilities as per the settled law.”

Making a prima facie observation against Umar Khalid and Imam, the court recorded that it appears the two “were the first ones to act after the CAA was passed in early December 2019, by creating WhatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets in the Muslim-populated areas calling for protests and chakka jaams…”

Unlike the case of Narwal, Tanha and Kalita, the bench held that specifically in the context of accused Athar Khan, Shadab Ahmed, Saifi and Mohd Saleem Khan, “we are of the view each member of the conspiracy, particularly the present appellants, were prima facie assigned a specific role in furtherance of the conspiracy, till its execution”.

Recording that not only there is a prima facie suggestion of their presence in various meetings between December 8, 2019 and February 25, 2020, the court said: “We may also note that… Abdul Khalid Saifi, apart from being alleged to be a part of the WhatsApp groups, conspiratorial meetings, and the creation of and attendance at the protest sites, is also alleged to have been involved in raising and receiving funds for procuring firearms and managing the protest sites… there is no evidence with respect to the allegation of receipt of money by the appellant for the procurement of firearms… the same is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated upon by this court while examining the aspect of bail…”

“Prima facie, it emerges that… Athar Khan and Shadab Khan were in agreement to destroy or cover government-installed CCTV cameras so that they could operate fearlessly” and that “Saleem Khan, can be seen in the CCTV Footage dislocating one of the Cameras with a stick-like object”.

Ultimately, the court ruled that “no case for parity is made out” with Kalita, Narwal and Tanha, for the four.

Similarly, terming Meeran Haider and Shifa-ur-Rehman as among the fundraisers for “furtherance of alleged conspiracy”, the HC refused to again draw any parity with those out on bail.

“The appellants have also been alleged to have raised and collected funds, to be used in the riots through various sources and for sustenance of the protest sites and the protesters… Shifa-Ur-Rehman had also generated fake bills of expenses to adjust money used in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy… (Rehman and Haider) are stated to have been in charge of more than eight protest sites in Delhi-NCR… Meeran Haider is also alleged to have spent Rs 2.33 lakh on riots and protest sites… and there was also a recovery of money from his residence.”

“Prima facie, it appears that (Rehman and Haider) were working together, and the allegation of funding is a serious factor which cannot be brushed aside at this stage… They appear to have raised money in furtherance of the conspiracy… the plea of parity is not made out in our considered opinion,” the bench reasoned.