Thursday, March 28, 2024

Mere presence at meeting not crime, Gulfisha Fatima to HC in Delhi pogrom UAPA case

Muslim woman activist Gulfisha Fatima, an accused in the Delhi pogrom UAPA case, told the Delhi High Court on Friday that there is no evidence to show that she gave any speech, used chilly powder, or encouraged women to collect the same, as alleged by the Delhi Police.

A special bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was hearing Gulfisha’s appeal against a trial court order denying her bail in the UAPA case, Live Law reported.

Gulfisha, an Urdu student of Delhi University, an MBA graduate, and a radio jockey, was arrested on the basis of an FIR on the Jaffrabad sit-in protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on 9 April 2020 and slapped with the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) along with other Muslim student leaders.

Her counsel informed the court that the police recorded the statement of only one witness at the time when Gulfisha was arrested. The counsel, however, added that the said statement is generic in nature and is not specific to any incident.

The statement of the said witnesses was recorded in order to fit the “emerging narrative of the prosecution,” her lawyer said.

Saying that Gulfisha will complete three years in custody in April this year, the counsel stated that her presence at the two meetings, as alleged by the prosecution, is a mere presence that cannot lead to a conclusion that she had any connection with the accused persons.

“In the meeting addressed by Umar Khalid, all that is said is that I was present. It is not alleged that I said something in addition to what he said. About the secret meeting at Chandbagh, everybody attended it,” Live Law quotes as Gulfisha says.

“This is a case where two meetings are far from secret. Anybody who wanted to attend, attends. Many protected witnesses did too. Given that everything is in open, it can’t be assumed that because I am not saying anything, I’m subscribing to what is said…..Mere presence at a meeting is not a culpable circumstance,” she added.

The court has now listed the matter for hearing on Monday for submissions by the prosecution.

spot_img

Don't Miss

Related Articles