Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Ahmed, also rejected the prosecution’s claim of delay before a bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and NV Anjaria.
“He is 27 years old and has been working as a supervisor in NDS Enterprises Jagatpuri since 2016. The charge is under debate but for me the debate is over and there is no delay from my side.
Luthra said, “Protected witnesses testified that they had heard him discussing the conspiracy at a biryani stall. One witness testified that Ahmed had organized and participated in a protest. Organizing and participating in a protest was not a criminal offense.”
The top court has now fixed the case for hearing on November 11 when Delhi Police will begin its arguments.
On Monday, activist Shifa-ur-Rehman had told the apex court that she was “selected” and no offense was made out against her under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Rehman were booked under provisions of the anti-terrorism law and the then IPC for being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
Violence broke out during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Seeking bail in the UAPA case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid had told the top court that there was no evidence linking him to the violence and had denied the conspiracy charges against him.
The Delhi High Court refused bail to nine people, including Khalid and Imam, saying “conspiratorial” violence cannot be allowed under the guise of demonstration or protest by citizens.
Besides Khalid and Imam, those who faced bail rejection are Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.
The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by another bench of the high court on September 2.
The High Court said that the Constitution grants citizens the right to protest and demonstrate or agitate, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without weapons, and such actions must be within the ambit of law.
While the High Court said that the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches at public meetings is protected under Article 19(1)(a), and cannot be categorically abridged, it said that this right is “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable restrictions”.
“If allowed to exercise unbridled right to protest, it would damage the constitutional framework and affect the law and order situation in the country,” the bail rejection order said.
The accused, who has denied all the charges against him, have been in jail since 2020 and had moved the high court after a trial court rejected his bail plea.