Former Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader Umar Khalid was “trying to create a perception” by referring to web series like “ Family Man “ and “ Trial of Chicago 7 ” and did not want to argue on the legal merits of the case, the prosecution told a Delhi court on Tuesday. It was arguing against his bail in the “larger conspiracy” case pertaining to the north-east Delhi riots under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad told Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that the fact that Mr. Khalid wanted to equate his trial in the case to the web series was “very unfortunate”.
“When you have nothing on merits, you want a media trial and create headlines…you want to create a perception,” Mr. Prasad said. “You don’t refer to the web series ‘ Grahan ’ which pertains to the 1984 riots.”
He said when law is being argued in the hearings, it doesn’t get covered but “when ‘ Family Man ’ is argued, then everything gets covered”. “You don’t want to argue anything on law, but you want to argue on something which is relevant in media,” Mr. Prasad told the court.
Taking exception to Mr. Khalid’s argument that the police and the investigating officer were “communal”, the prosecution said the probe agency was not of a particular person but it was a State. “The first conviction in the riots case was that of a Hindu,” Mr. Prasad said.
The prosecution said Mr. Khalid was part of a conspiracy whose main objective was to “ sarkar ko ghutne par laana hain ( bring the government to its knees)”.
“The ultimate object of rioters was to overawe the government and undermine the authority of the government which enacted the Citizenship [Amendment] Act and to destabilise the democracy,” Mr. Prasad said.
“In this case, there is a criminal conspiracy, a secrecy…a clear attempt to cover up after the crime has come to light,” he said.
Mr. Khalid, through his advocate Trideep Pais, earlier argued that he had no role to play in the conspiracy and had merely sent a few messages on the Delhi Protest Support Group’s WhatsApp group.
To this, Mr. Prasad, while referring to Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, said it was not a crime to purchase a battery in Nalini’s (convict) case. “The north-east Delhi riots were not spontaneous. This fact has also been appreciated by the High Court,” he said.
The prosecution will further argue against the bail next on January 24 and 31.
