Synopsis: The Judge said that on the basis of the insignificant content in the present case, chargesheeting the applicant is an absolute non-application of mind by the police which goes to the point of vindictiveness.
Khalid Saifi, one of the suspected for been involved in the Delhi riots of February, was granted bail by the Delhi Court in Khajuri Kas.
The prosecution had claimed that after the Citizenship Amendment Act protests, Saifi was part of a greater conspiracy with co-accused Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, Asif Tanha, Danish, Ishrat Jahan, Bilal Lamba and others.
Moreover, it was asserted that the statements disclosed by Hussain proved Saifi’s involvement in the incident.
A declaration made by one, Rahul Kasana, was put on record to prove that there was a conspiracy between Umar Khalid, Saifi, and Hussain. Some call records were also submitted to display calls at certain points in time between the various accused, which led to a meeting.
Junking the submissions of the prosecution, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav argued that based on negligible content, the “lofty allegations of conspiracy” pointed to a complete non-application of mind extending to vindictiveness.
The only proof of this so-called plot is a statement by PW Rahul Kasana, in which he claimed on 27.09.2020 that he was standing outside a building in the Shaheen Bagh district, where Tahir Hussain, the principal accused, had been dropped, and then he saw the claimant and Umar Khalid entering the same building.
“From the above argument, I do not understand how a lofty assertion of conspiracy can be inferred,” Judge Yadav said.
The Court granted him bail subject to a deposit of Rs. 20,000 as a bond and the Aarogya Setu App installation on his computer, finding that there was no other material linking Saifi to the scene of the abuse.
The Court, however, asked the questions as to how the conspiracy crime was linked to Saifi as he was not convicted in the other cases in which his suspected co-conspirators were involved. Apart from this, the Judge ruled that Kasana’s allegation suggesting a plot had yet to be checked in evidence.
Saifi’s attorney had said that he had no previous criminal records and that he was wrongly involved in the case. In addition, the Court was informed that he was not seen in any of the CCTV footage provided from the scene of the rioting. Instead, it was reported that all that was discovered against him were alleged “disclosure claims” of his co-accused Tahir Hussain, which had not contributed to any recovery being made.
His phone calls to Umar Khalid and others, his counsel further suggested, were due to their common presence in Shaheen Bagh.
The Court allowed Saifi bail, finding no substance in the arguments advanced and the material provided by the prosecution.
However, the Judge explained that his comments were made only for the purpose of disposing off the application for bail and was not to be viewed as a comment on the merits.
Special Public Prosecutor Manoj Chaudhury argued for the State, whereas Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Advocates Bhavook Chauhan, Rajat Kumar, Harsh Bora, Pravita Kashyap, Tushar Yadav and Syed Atif represented Saifi.