Why denial of bail to Umar Khalid is so shocking |
Umar Khalid never gave any public call to incite violence. On the contrary, his much circulated speech had him say, “We will not respond to hate with hate or to violence with violence.” No evidence has been produced in court to show that he was involved in funding the anti-CAA agitation (it is a different matter that even if he had, it would not be proof of incitement) or transporting arms. When the 2020 riots began in parts of Delhi, he was not even present in the city.
So what was the evidence against Khalid relied upon by the prosecution? Significantly, the key prosecution witnesses have all been anonymous, so-called ‘protected witnesses’. Most of these witness statements have been in the nature of hearsay, such as ‘X saw Khalid with Z’, ‘A heard Khalid say…’ and ‘B heard C say that Khalid said…’.
Some of the prosecution witnesses during the trial were actually given names like 'Romeo' and 'Juliet'. The defence argument that these statements were unreliable, were recorded long after the riots, were contradictory etc. was noted by the trial court which, however, held that they can be considered only during the trial, which is yet to commence.
These are some of the reasons why at least a section of the legal fraternity is shocked at the Supreme Court denying bail to Khalid on Monday, 5 January, and laying down that he will........