Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Northeast Delhi violence: Speech in bad taste doesn't make it a terrorist act, says Delhi HC

New Delhi [India], May 30 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday, while hearing the argument on Umar Khalid’s bail plea, said Amravati’s speech was in bad taste but that doesn’t make it terrorist activity. “We understand that extremely well. We will give the opportunity to prosecution,” the court said.buy cymbalta online buy cymbalta online […]

Representative Image

New Delhi [India], May 30 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday, while hearing the argument on Umar Khalid’s bail plea, said Amravati’s speech was in bad taste but that doesn’t make it terrorist activity.

“We understand that extremely well. We will give the opportunity to prosecution,” the court said.
buy cymbalta online buy cymbalta online no prescription

The High court listed the matter post-summer vacation on July 4 for further hearing.

The said speech was allegedly given by Umar in Amaravati on February 17, 2020. He was booked under UAPA by Delhi Police and was arrested on September 13, 2020.

Justice Siddharth Mridul said if the case of the prosecution is based on the premise of how the offensive speech was, that by itself won’t constitute an offence. We will give you the opportunity.

Justice Mridul further said, “It may tantamount to defamation but it doesn’t tantamount to terrorist activity.”

Last month, the bench had called the speech offensive and obnoxious. He said that the speech was hateful and not acceptable.

A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and justice Rajnish Bhatnagar heard the bail plea of Umar Khalid. Umar Khalid has challenged the trial court order after it denied bail in the larger conspiracy of the North East Delhi riots of February 2020.

The bench while adjourning the matter said that this matter has taken more time than they had thought. We have habeas corpus petitions to hear. We will continue this matter post-summer vacations.

During the argument, advocate Sanaya Kumar questioned the testimony of the prosecution witness on the basis of contradiction and at the same time on the basis of identical facts stated by the witnesses.

She argued that the meeting at Seelampur was not a secret one, neither it was a secret office.

She questioned the testimony of a protected witness who said Natasha Narwal was present at the secret meeting. Though the call detail report says she was not in Seelampur on that day.

Thereafter senior advocate Tridip Pais argued that there is no material, no basis for allegations in the charge sheet. It is based on hearsay.

He argued, by referring to the picture taken from Facebook, that this is one picture and there are many others. Anyone who wants to hatch a conspiracy would upload the photographs on Facebook.

During during argument on May 23, 2022, he had argued that Sharjeel Imam had criticized a secular movement against CAA and Khalid does not agree with it.

Pais had said I am (Umar Khalid) being lumped with a person who calls for a deeply communal protest against CAA. There is no ideological meeting of minds.

This case pertains to the larger conspiracy of the Northeast Delhi riots of February 2020. In these riots, 53 people died and hundreds were got injured. (ANI)

Source: National


Comments

Your email address will not be published.

Name *