A Delhi Court on Thursday granted bail to United Against Hate activist Umar Khalid in Khajuri Khas violence case connected to Delhi pogrom.
However Khalid will remain behind bars in Delhi pogrom conspiracy case along with other activists and student leaders booked under draconian UAPA.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted bail after observing that he “cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter,” Livelaw reports.
Judge observed that Khalid cannot remain behind bars on the basis of sketchy materials.
Delhi crime brach has completed the Investigation and chargesheet had also been filed in FIR 101/20.
Court observed that prosecution couldn’t produce any public witnesses or police witnesses to prove him being present at the crime scene.
Jailed activists Khalid Saifi, Riyasat Ali, Liyakat Ali, Shah Alam and Gulfam have been granted bail in the same FIR. The Court considered it a fit case to grant bail to Khalid on the ground of parity.
As per bail clause, Umar Khalid needs to install Arogya Setu App when released from jail. As per bail order, he needs to be flourishing Rs 20,000 personal bond with one surety in the like amount and subject to the condition that he shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in any manner, maintain peace and appear before the Court on every date of hearing.
FIR was registered against Khalid under sec. 109, 114, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 186, 212, 353, 395, 427, 435, 436, 452/, 454, 505 , 34 and 120-B of IPC along with sec. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and sec. 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
FIR 101 was registered on the basis of statement by police constable Sangram Singh wherein it was stated that a large crowd had gathered near Chand Bagh Pulia on 24th February 2020 and started pelting stones.
It was argued on behalf of Khalid that he was being falsely implicated in the case due to “political vendetta to muzzle the dissent”.
Prosecution argued that the violence were not impromptu and it was part of a planned conspiracy with the intent to create communal strife and defame India under the grab of anti-CAA protest.
