Prosecution’s case is completely dislocated from records and law: RJD youth leader Meeran Haider to Delhi HC in riots case

Haider and several others were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment (UAPA) Act for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots that left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence erupted during the anti-CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) protests.

Arrested in April 2020, Haider has moved the high court seeking bail. He argued that the trial court had to look at accusations made with respect to his client which has not been done. He further submitted that there are no specific accusations against his client except one witness statement, which does not have a recording and transcript unlike other witness statements and which was recorded four days before the charge sheet was filed.

The statement refers to Meeran making a speech on the intervening night of February 22-23, 2020 exhorting people to carry out chakka jam, use stones on the police etc. if CAA is not taken back by the government. “This is the only statement about a speech which is attributed to me. But there is no recording or transcript for this. For every other speech there is a transcript and recording,” he said.

He argued, “If the proviso of Section 43D(5) UAPA says that consideration of the test is with respect to accusations against me, then those accusations should relate to offences under chapter IV” of the Act, specifically Section 15 which relates to a terrorist act, which Haider has been charged with. Section 43D (5) lays down the test for denying bail under UAPA, namely that the court must be satisfied that a “prima facie” case exists against the accused.

His counsel argued that the “material collected by the prosecution must point out what are the accusations” against his client. He submitted that when his client moved a bail application, the prosecution replied to the same by way of a one-page response. “It can’t be that they refuse to answer this…and say that they are relying on the entirety of the chargesheet. They invoked 43D(5) but they won’t get into a granular discussion,” he emphasised.

Referring to witness statements, Haider’s counsel argued that his intention was not to cause terrorist activity, it was only to protest. Referring to the statement where the witness said that Haider used the word “jung (war)”, he said, “One word war does not mean that he wanted to start violence. I may have used the word jung, or he may have heard me use it –in terms of my ability to launch a protest.”

Haider’s counsel said that the prosecution needs to show the activities his client has done, which has been “pegged with Section 15” of the UAPA as opposed to Section 13 which defines unlawful activity. On the argument of financing of terrorism taken by the prosecution in the chargesheet, Haider’s counsel said that terrorism can only be financed if it occurs in the first place.

Haider’s counsel submitted that the matter was pending before the trial court at the “scrutiny of docs” stage. He submitted, “I have completed almost three years in prison. The chargesheet is 2,000 pages, the documents are larger than that. Trial is not ending anytime soon. There is no further material in my control and I’m not in a position to influence witnesses. I’m not a flight risk. My ability to complete my PhD (from Jamia) has also been put on hold. I have been granted extensions but if I fail to complete it this year, then it is gone and I can’t complete it from jail.”

Concluding his arguments, Haider’s counsel sought that his client is granted bail in these circumstances.

The matter is listed on February 10 for arguments by Delhi Police.