Delhi Riots 2020: High Court denies bail to accused in UAPA case

Delhi High Court denies bail to accused in UAPA case linked to 2020 riots, citing violent public demonstration as offence

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 communal riots here, saying a violent public demonstration goes beyond the constitutional right to protest and becomes an offence punishable under law.

A Bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, in its order uploaded on April 23, said there was enough material to indicate that the accused Salim Malik, who allegedly instigated the locals in the name of religion to destroy harmony, was a co-conspirator in a "deep-rooted conspiracy".

The Court observed that "secular names/Hindu names" were given to protest sites to give them a secular colour, and the objective of the conspirators was to escalate protests to "chakka jam" and lead the mobilised crowd to indulge in violence.

"In the meetings dated 20/21.02.2020 at Chand Bagh and again on 22/23.02.2020, which were attended by the appellant along with other accused, the aspects related to riot-like violence and burning of Delhi, were openly discussed which is not acceptable in any democratic nation.

"There were also talks of finances, arranging arms, procuring of petrol bombs for killing of people and arsoning of property and destruction of CCTV installed in the area," observed the Bench also comprising Justice Manoj Jain.

"The perpetrators and conspirators of such riots had learnt a lesson from the riots which had earlier taken place in December, 2019 which were having similar characteristics and modus operandi, albeit on a lower scale. The objective of the conspirators was to escalate protests to chakka jam and once crowd in large number was mobilized, lead and incite them against the police and others," the Court added in its order passed on April 22.

On the basis of the factual matrix and the statements of the witnesses, the Court opined that the accusation against the accused made out a "prima facie true" case against him, which attracted the embargo on bail created under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA.