‘Regime change’ conspiracy behind 2020 riots, Delhi Police tell SC; oppose bail to accused

The Delhi Police said that the petitioners were solely responsible for the delay in the trial in the case and, therefore, should not be given the benefit of that. “The petitioners through their malafide machinations have made every attempt available to them in the book to delay, derail and obfuscate the investigation and trial in the matter…The bail in the present case, specifically in view of the extreme severe gravity of the offence cannot be granted only on the ground of delay for which the petitioner(s) themselves are responsible,” the affidavit stated.

The police said that there exists “occular and irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidences against the petitioners showing their intrinsic, deep-rooted and fervent complicity in engineering a nation-wide riots on communal lines”.

The affidavit said that “the conspiracy hatched, nurtured and executed by” them “was to strike at the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of the country by destroying the communal harmony; instigating the crowd not only to abrogate public order but to instigate them to an extent of armed rebellion.” It added that “the international theory developed in past few years have termed these kinds of organised/sponsored protests as ” Regime Change Operation(s)”.

The Delhi Police said that “the materials on record, including the chats referencing US President Donald Trump, establish beyond doubt that the instant conspiracy was pre-planned to be executed at the time when US president was to make an official visit to India. This was done so as to draw the attention of ‘international media’ and to make the issue of CAA a global issue by portraying it as an act pogrom of Muslim community in India”. The affidavit further said that the CAA issue was “carefully chosen” to serve as a “radicalising catalyst camouflaged in the name of peaceful protest”.

‘Conspiracy was sought to be replicated pan-India’

“The deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy hatched by the petitioners resulted in death of 53 persons, large scale damage of public property leading to registration 753 FIRS in Delhi alone,” the affidavit pointed out, adding that “evidence on record suggest that the instant conspiracy was sought to be replicated and executed PAN India”.

Opposing the accused’s prayer for bail, it said, “in the offences which strike at the very root of integrity of India (UAPA offences) ‘jail and not bail’ is the rule”.

The affidavit said that the allegations against the petitioner(s) were “prima-facie true” and “the onus of refuting the said presumption rests with the petitioners which they have miserably failed to discharge”.

Bail in the present case, the affidavit added, “specifically in view of the extreme severe gravity of the offence cannot be granted only on the ground of delay for which the petitioner themselves are responsible”.

The police said that “the conduct of the petitioners in the present case is riddled with brazen and blatant abuse of the process of law.” It said that “the delay which has occurred in the commencement of trial is solely attributable to the petitioner”, adding that the Delhi High Court and the special court have repeatedly issued judicial findings detailing how the petitioners, working in tandem, have not allowed charges to be framed.

The affidavit added that “at every stage of the trial”, the petitioners “tried to derail and delay the proceedings, in as much as even during the stage of 207; the accused created hurdles by filing frivolous applications”.

‘Accused solely responsible for delay’

Explaining how the petitioners delayed the trial, the Delhi Police said in their affidavit that the accused, “under a well-planned confederacy, for almost two years, did not allow 207 CrPC (supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session) proceedings to complete. It was only on the intervention of the appellate courts that with great difficulty the S. 207 proceedings could get concluded.”

The Section 207 proceedings started on September 30, 2021, and ended on August 5, 2023, the affidavit pointed out, adding that 39 dates were taken by the accused in the proceedings.

Even “after conclusion of S. 207 CrPC proceedings in the year 2023” and “despite the order of day to day hearing, petitioner’s again under a well planned conspiracy did not allow the Special court to proceed with framing of charges and delayed the trial for over 2 years,” the affidavit added.

The “framing of charge proceedings started on 5.08.2023, however, the accused blatantly refused to argue the matter on charge on one pretext or another [mostly for frivolous and obstructive reasons],” it said, pointing out that the special court has heard the matter for 50 dates “and still only 11 of Accused have argued on charge”.

It also pointed out that the Delhi High Court had, in an order, “given detailed findings after elaborately examining the record as to how the accused have delayed the trial and are solely responsible for the delay which has accrued till date in the matter.”

On the argument of the accused “that there are more than 900 witness in the matter and hence there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in the present case”, the police said that this was “ex-facie misleading”.

“It is stated that the number of witness mentioned in the chargesheet are witness whose statements were on record….once the trial commence the number of the said witnesses will be pruned accordingly. In the reasonable estimate of the respondent there are only 100-150 witnesses which are material to prove the offence,” the affidavit said.

“Remaining are repetitive or technical witnesses whose examination can be completed in a very short period of time, provided that there is co-operation by accused in the trial proceedings,” it added.

What the Delhi HC said last month

On September 2, the Delhi High Court had rejected the bail pleas of nine accused in the case—Khalid, Imam, Gulshifa Fathima, Meeran Haider, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, and Shadab Ahmed—saying the riots were not a “regular protest” but a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy”.

The high court had said, “….in the conspectus of the allegations levelled, it emerges that the role of the appellants – Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – is prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy, having delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilisation of members of the Muslim community.”

Drawing a line on the limits of right to protest vis-a-vis the right to freedom of speech, the high court said, “If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law-and-order situation in the country. Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the state machinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of the freedom of speech, expression, and association.”

Following this, they moved the Supreme Court, where a two-judge bench is scheduled to hear it on October 31. Three other accused—Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha—were granted bail by the high court in June 2021, while a fourth accused, former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, was granted bail in March 2022.