Never supported violence, no link with Umar Khalid: Sharjeel Imam tells court
Activist Sharjeel Imam told a Delhi court that he never supported violence and had no coordination with co-accused Umar Khalid, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish any agreement required to prove a criminal conspiracy in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case
New Delhi: Activist Sharjeel Imam on Thursday concluded his arguments before a Delhi court against the framing of charges in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case linked to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, stating that he never supported violence and had no coordination with co-accused Umar Khalid.
Arguing before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts, Imam’s counsel Talib Mustafa submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish any agreement or coordination between Imam and Khalid, which is a necessary ingredient to prove criminal conspiracy.
“In my five years at JNU, I never spoke to Umar Khalid. I don’t know what coordination they are talking about. To establish a conspiracy, it is necessary to show the agreement between us. But they have failed to show any agreement,” Imam’s lawyer told the court.
He added that the allegation that Khalid instructed Imam was also false.
“There is only one meeting in which Umar and I are seen together. But even the witness statement from that meeting shows that there was no discussion of violence,” Mustafa said.
The counsel further contended that during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019-20, Imam consistently spoke of non-violence and never called for violent demonstrations.
“Their case is that I wanted violence, that I wanted riots and the killing of people. But there is no discussion of any violence in any of my meetings. In fact, I have talked about non-violence,” Mustafa said.
The development comes days after the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Imam and Khalid, holding that the prosecution material, taken cumulatively, disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against them were prima facie true under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
On the issue of delay in trial, the apex court said that “the appropriate judicial response is to ensure prioritisation and expedition, not to grant bail in disregard of the statutory mandate.”
“The remedy for stagnation lies in calibrated judicial supervision and directions for expeditious progress, not enlargement on bail where the embargo is attracted,” it added.
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to accord due priority to the matter and ensure that the proceedings are carried forward with reasonable expedition.
However, the apex court granted bail to five other accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
The Delhi Police has accused Imam, Khalid and several others of being involved in terror activities and conspiring to incite violence during the 2020 city riots.
Following the conclusion of Imam’s counsel’s submissions before the Karkardooma Courts, arguments from the other accused are likely to commence next week.
