New Delhi: Observing that the former JNU student Umar Khalid "cannot be permitted to remain behind bars in this case on the basis of such a sketchy material against him" and that he has been roped in the matter merely on the basis of his own disclosure statement and that of his co-accused, a Delhi court on Thursday granted him bail in relation to the violence at Khajuri Khas during the north-east Delhi riots that broke out last year.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav, while allowing Khalid's bail plea, stated that it is a matter of record that it has nowhere been the prosecution's case that Khalid was physically present at the scene of the crime (SOC) on the date of the incident. The court also said that the applicant is not visible in any CCTV footage/viral video(s) pertaining to the scene of the crime on the date of incident.
ASJ Yadav said that there has been no identification of the applicant either through independent public witnesses or any police witness of he being present at the scene of the crime on the date of the incident neither the call detail record (CDR) location of the mobile phone of Khalid has been found at the scene of the crime on the date of the incident.
"The applicant has merely been roped in the matter on basis of his own disclosure statement, fourth disclosure statement of co-accused Tahir Hussain and disclosure statement of co-accused Khalid Saifi," the court noted, adding that no recovery of any sort has been effected from the applicant pursuant to his disclosure statement.
ASJ Yadav further observed that the prosecution's case that Khalid was regularly in touch with co-accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi which is evident from their CDR location on January 8 which has been found to be at Shaheen Bagh "is hardly of any consequence, as prima facie that does not in any way go on to establish the criminal conspiracy alleged against the applicant in the matter".
Casting doubt on the statement of public witness(PW), one Rahul Kasana, the court said that his statement under Section 161 CrPC does not indicate the subject matter of the meeting between the accused persons and that in his testimony in the "larger conspiracy" case on May 21, where is a PW too, he did not utter a single word against the applicant about a "criminal conspiracy" but all of a sudden in a statement on September 27 in the present case, "blew the trumpet" on the same.
On the judgements relied upon the prosecution to defend its case against Khalid, ASJ Yadav observed: "The said judgements to the extent they lay down the proposition of law are fairly clear, however, the same do not advance the claim of State any further because of insufficiency of material on record against the applicant".
Restraining himself from analyzing the statement of PW Rahul Kasana, given on September 27, "as the date of recording of the statement itself speaks volumes about the credibility thereof", the court noted: "I find absolutely no substance in the argument of learned Special PP that in a case of criminal conspiracy, the disclosure statement of co-accused can be read against another co-accused, merely on the ground that pursuant thereto the CDRs of co-accused were unearthed which led to the recovery of the fact of meeting dated 08.01.2020".
Stating that the sole evidence in this "so-called conspiracy" is a statement of PW Kasana, wherein he has stated that on September 27, after he had dropped main accused Tahir Hussain outside a building at Shaheen Bagh, he saw Khalid and Khalid Saifi go inside the same building, ASJ Yadav said that, "I fail to understand from the aforesaid statement how a lofty claim of conspiracy can be inferred," adding: "In my humble opinion, charge sheeting the applicant in this case on the basis of such an insignificant material is unwarranted". Meanwhile, Khalid still remains incarcerated since he is yet to be granted bail in the riots "larger conspiracy" case against him, attracting the stringent UAPA.