News Analysis India

Tag: Delhi Riots

  • 2020 Delhi riots: Court grants bail to Shahrukh Pathan who was seen pointing gun at cop

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has granted bail to Shahrukh Pathan, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots, in connection with a case relating to causing injuries to several cops and gunshot injury to another man during the Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests.

    Pathan’s pictures, in which he was seen aiming a pistol at head constable Deepak Dahiya on February 24, 2020, went viral, and he was slapped with various cases during the riots.

    Though he got bail in the present case in which an FIR was registered in Jaffrabad Police Station, which is related to causing injuries to police personnel and gunshot injury to one Rohit Shukla, Pathan will remain in jail as there is another case pending against him for attacking a cop.

    Allowing him bail in the present case, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat at Karkardooma courts observed that the court is conscious of the fact that Pathan’s conduct before he was arrested and even during trial and during judicial custody has been atrocious.

    All other co-accused persons are on bail while he is remaining in judicial custody since April 3, it was noted.  

    “In the overall facts and circumstances of the case where accused Shahrukh Pathan is in custody since 03.04.2020, the stage of the prosecution evidence,where public witness/injured PW-2 Rohit Shukla has been examined and relevant remaining witnesses are all police officials and all other co-accused persons are on bail, the present bail application of accused Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan is allowed and he is admitted to regular bail on furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs 50000 with two local sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions,” the order read.  

    In May, before the High Court, he had submitted that others in the case got bail while he is the only person behind bars and the ‘entire case is a farce.’

    According to police, his illegal firearm, a 7.65 mm pistol along with two live rounds, was recovered and several shots had been fired by him. The FIR in the gun-waving case was registered under various Sections of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In December 2021, the trial court framed charges against Pathan and other accused in the FIR.

    ALSO READ | NewsClick case: Police FIR names lawyer Gautam Bhatia, cites his ‘legal defence’ for Xiaomi and Vivo

    NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has granted bail to Shahrukh Pathan, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots, in connection with a case relating to causing injuries to several cops and gunshot injury to another man during the Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests.

    Pathan’s pictures, in which he was seen aiming a pistol at head constable Deepak Dahiya on February 24, 2020, went viral, and he was slapped with various cases during the riots.

    Though he got bail in the present case in which an FIR was registered in Jaffrabad Police Station, which is related to causing injuries to police personnel and gunshot injury to one Rohit Shukla, Pathan will remain in jail as there is another case pending against him for attacking a cop.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    Allowing him bail in the present case, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat at Karkardooma courts observed that the court is conscious of the fact that Pathan’s conduct before he was arrested and even during trial and during judicial custody has been atrocious.

    All other co-accused persons are on bail while he is remaining in judicial custody since April 3, it was noted.  

    “In the overall facts and circumstances of the case where accused Shahrukh Pathan is in custody since 03.04.2020, the stage of the prosecution evidence,where public witness/injured PW-2 Rohit Shukla has been examined and relevant remaining witnesses are all police officials and all other co-accused persons are on bail, the present bail application of accused Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan is allowed and he is admitted to regular bail on furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs 50000 with two local sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions,” the order read.  

    In May, before the High Court, he had submitted that others in the case got bail while he is the only person behind bars and the ‘entire case is a farce.’

    According to police, his illegal firearm, a 7.65 mm pistol along with two live rounds, was recovered and several shots had been fired by him. The FIR in the gun-waving case was registered under various Sections of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In December 2021, the trial court framed charges against Pathan and other accused in the FIR.

    ALSO READ | NewsClick case: Police FIR names lawyer Gautam Bhatia, cites his ‘legal defence’ for Xiaomi and Vivo

  • ‘Breaks my heart, not spirit’, says activist Safoora Zargar’s after Jamia cancels her admission

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University has cancelled the admission of scholar and activist Safoora Zargar, who was arrested in a 2020 riots case, due to “unsatisfactory” progress in her thesis work.

    Zargar, who had enrolled with the Department of Sociology in the integrated MPhil/PhD programme, said the cancellation “breaks my heart but not my spirit”.

    In a notification dated August 26, office of the dean, Faculty of Social Science, said she did not submit her M.Phil dissertation within the maximum stipulated time of five semesters.

    “The registration of Safoora Zargar from M.Phil./Ph.D.(Sociology) stands cancelled w.e.f.22 August, 2022, in anticipation of the approval of the same of the Faculty Committee,” the notification read.

    The dean’s office mentioned that the action has been taken on the recommendation given by the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) on July 5.

    “In anticipation of the approval of the same of the Faculty committee”The usually snail-paced Jamia admin moving at light speed to cancel my admission, foregoing all due process.Let it be known, it breaks my heart but not my spirit. pic.twitter.com/2t0Nos9qiK
    — Safoora Zargar (@SafooraZargar) August 29, 2022
    The matter was approved by the department’s Board of Studies, the highest decision-making body of the department, on August 22.

    “On the recommendation of the RAC, dated July 5, the DRC (Department Research Committee) dated August 22, and the supervisor’s report, the Board of Studies approved the cancellation of admission of Safoora Zargar, M.Phil./Ph.D Scholar, registered under Prof. Kulwinder Kaur,” the notification further read.

    The administration claimed that her supervisor marked her performance “unsatisfactory” in the progress report, that she did not apply for an extension as a ‘woman scholar’ before the expiry of the stipulated maximum period.

    “The scholar did not submit her M.Phil dissertation within the maximum stipulated time of five semesters plus on an additional semester of Covid extension (sixth semester) that was also given to her, which ended on February 6,” the notification mentioned.

    Zargar, meanwhile, took to Twitter to point out how quickly her admission cancellation was approved.

    “”The usually snail-paced Jamia admin moving at light speed to cancel my admission, foregoing all due process. Let it be known, it breaks my heart but not my spirit,” Zargar tweeted.

    Zargar and some Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leaders have been accused of being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi.

    Last week, she had tweeted that her application for an extension of MPhil thesis submission has been put on hold for over eight months.

    She had told PTI that the administration was not responding to her application.

    On Wednesday, she had written to Jamia Vice Chancellor Najma Akhtar that she was being subjected to undue harassment and ridicule at the hands of the administration.

    “While UGC has granted five consecutive Covid extensions I have been given only one. I was forced to apply for an extension under the women scholar category, only to be denied after months citing ‘unsatisfactory progress’. This is in clear violation of the guidelines laid down by UGC (University Grants Commission) and points to the malafide intentions of the supervisor and the department. I will be taking all remedial action available to me,” the letter read.

    A day later, the university had issued a statement saying Zargar did not complete her dissertation before the expiry of the Covid extension that came to an end on Februrary 6, and there was no provision for any further Covid extension as per the UGC notification as the scholar had been claiming.

    NEW DELHI: Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University has cancelled the admission of scholar and activist Safoora Zargar, who was arrested in a 2020 riots case, due to “unsatisfactory” progress in her thesis work.

    Zargar, who had enrolled with the Department of Sociology in the integrated MPhil/PhD programme, said the cancellation “breaks my heart but not my spirit”.

    In a notification dated August 26, office of the dean, Faculty of Social Science, said she did not submit her M.Phil dissertation within the maximum stipulated time of five semesters.

    “The registration of Safoora Zargar from M.Phil./Ph.D.(Sociology) stands cancelled w.e.f.22 August, 2022, in anticipation of the approval of the same of the Faculty Committee,” the notification read.

    The dean’s office mentioned that the action has been taken on the recommendation given by the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) on July 5.

    “In anticipation of the approval of the same of the Faculty committee”
    The usually snail-paced Jamia admin moving at light speed to cancel my admission, foregoing all due process.
    Let it be known, it breaks my heart but not my spirit. pic.twitter.com/2t0Nos9qiK
    — Safoora Zargar (@SafooraZargar) August 29, 2022
    The matter was approved by the department’s Board of Studies, the highest decision-making body of the department, on August 22.

    “On the recommendation of the RAC, dated July 5, the DRC (Department Research Committee) dated August 22, and the supervisor’s report, the Board of Studies approved the cancellation of admission of Safoora Zargar, M.Phil./Ph.D Scholar, registered under Prof. Kulwinder Kaur,” the notification further read.

    The administration claimed that her supervisor marked her performance “unsatisfactory” in the progress report, that she did not apply for an extension as a ‘woman scholar’ before the expiry of the stipulated maximum period.

    “The scholar did not submit her M.Phil dissertation within the maximum stipulated time of five semesters plus on an additional semester of Covid extension (sixth semester) that was also given to her, which ended on February 6,” the notification mentioned.

    Zargar, meanwhile, took to Twitter to point out how quickly her admission cancellation was approved.

    “”The usually snail-paced Jamia admin moving at light speed to cancel my admission, foregoing all due process. Let it be known, it breaks my heart but not my spirit,” Zargar tweeted.

    Zargar and some Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leaders have been accused of being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi.

    Last week, she had tweeted that her application for an extension of MPhil thesis submission has been put on hold for over eight months.

    She had told PTI that the administration was not responding to her application.

    On Wednesday, she had written to Jamia Vice Chancellor Najma Akhtar that she was being subjected to undue harassment and ridicule at the hands of the administration.

    “While UGC has granted five consecutive Covid extensions I have been given only one. I was forced to apply for an extension under the women scholar category, only to be denied after months citing ‘unsatisfactory progress’. This is in clear violation of the guidelines laid down by UGC (University Grants Commission) and points to the malafide intentions of the supervisor and the department. I will be taking all remedial action available to me,” the letter read.

    A day later, the university had issued a statement saying Zargar did not complete her dissertation before the expiry of the Covid extension that came to an end on Februrary 6, and there was no provision for any further Covid extension as per the UGC notification as the scholar had been claiming.

  • Anti-CAA protests: Delhi court rejects interim bail for Sharjeel Imam 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday denied interim bail to former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to an alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

    Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat rejected the bail plea noting there was not sufficient ground to grant the relief.

    During the hearing, Imam’s counsel Ahmad Ibrahim told the court that the accused met the conditions for bail and he was not a flight risk, nor at the risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

    Also, Imam did not make a conscious call for inciting violent activities, the counsel said.

    Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the bail plea and said the court could consider the gravity of the offence before granting bail.

    Imam is accused of making inflammatory speeches against the government on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), particularly at the Jamia Milia Islamia University in December 2019, which allegedly led to violence in the area outside the university.

    Imam, also facing sedition charges for his alleged inflammatory speeches, is in judicial custody since January 2020.

    The Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against Imam in the case, in which it alleged that he gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central government and instigated people which led to the violence in December 2019.

    NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday denied interim bail to former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to an alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

    Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat rejected the bail plea noting there was not sufficient ground to grant the relief.

    During the hearing, Imam’s counsel Ahmad Ibrahim told the court that the accused met the conditions for bail and he was not a flight risk, nor at the risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

    Also, Imam did not make a conscious call for inciting violent activities, the counsel said.

    Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the bail plea and said the court could consider the gravity of the offence before granting bail.

    Imam is accused of making inflammatory speeches against the government on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), particularly at the Jamia Milia Islamia University in December 2019, which allegedly led to violence in the area outside the university.

    Imam, also facing sedition charges for his alleged inflammatory speeches, is in judicial custody since January 2020.

    The Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against Imam in the case, in which it alleged that he gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central government and instigated people which led to the violence in December 2019.

  • Amit Shah failed to protect Delhi from communal violence: NCP chief Sharad Pawar

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: NCP president Sharad Pawar on Saturday said Union Home Minister Amit Shah could not protect Delhi from communal riots. Speaking at a rally of the Nationalist Congress Party at Kolhapur in western Maharashtra, Pawar referred to violence that broke out in Jahangirpuri area of Delhi during Hanuman Jayanti processions.

    “Few days back, Delhi was burning due to communal tensions. The state of Delhi is controlled by (chief minister) Arvind Kejriwal, but its police comes under the Union Home Ministry handled by Amit Shah. Shah failed to protect the city from communal riots. If anything happens in Delhi, the message goes out to the world. The world would imagine that there is unrest in Delhi. You have power, but you can not handle Delhi,” he said.

    He also targeted the BJP government in Karnataka over riots in Hooghly. “The names of shops and their owners from minority communities were mentioned on a hoarding. It was also written on it that people should not buy things from such shops. This is a common picture in the states where the BJP is in power,” the former Union minister said.

  • Government issues advisory to TV channels on coverage of Ukraine conflict, Delhi riots

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Taking exception to television coverage of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the Delhi riots, the government on Saturday issued a strong advisory to news channels asking them to abide by the programme code laid down by the relevant laws.

    The government cited specific instances of “hyperbolic” statements by news anchors and “scandalous headlines/taglines” while reporting on the Ukraine-Russia conflict and disrupting the investigation process into the “incidents” in north-west Delhi by airing “unverified CCTV footages”.

    It also said that certain debates on television channels on the incidents in north-west Delhi had “unparliamentary, provocative and socially unacceptable language”.

    Last week, clashes broke out between two communities in northwest Delhi’s Jahangirpuri during an Hanuman Jayanti procession.

    “Having regard to the above, the government expresses serious concern about the manner in which the television channels have gone about their operations in the manner of transmitting content,” read the advisory issued by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry.

    It “strongly advised” the television channels to “immediately refrain from publishing and transmitting any content which is violative of the aforementioned provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and the rules thereunder.”

  • Trial judge hearing Delhi riots cases transferred to another district court

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A trial judge, who has been critical of the “callous and farcical” probe of Delhi police in some riots cases of 2020 and had once observed that failure to conduct a proper investigation will torment “sentinels of democracy,” was on Wednesday transferred to another court in the national capital.

    Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vinod Yadav has been hearing several riots cases at the Karkardooma District Courts here has been transferred to New Delhi district’s Rouse Avenue Court as Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) in place of Judge Virender Bhatt who will now be holding the post of ASJ in Karkardooma court.

    The public notice issued by the Delhi High Court listing the names of the judges who have been transferred said: “Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Judges of this Court have been pleased to make the following postings/transfers in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service with immediate effect.

    ”The judicial officers under transfer have been directed to notify the cases in which they have reserved judgements or orders before relinquishing the charge, the public notice undersigned by Registrar General Manoj Jain said.

    ASJ Yadav, a day before his transfer, came down heavily on Delhi police saying ‘Police witnesses are lying on oath’ and giving contradictory statements.

    The observation came during the hearing of a northeast Delhi riots case after one policeman identified three alleged rioters but another said that they could not be identified during the investigation.

    “This is a very sorry state of affairs,” Yadav had said and sought a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (northeast) in this regard.

    The judge has been disapproving the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police in some of the riots cases and has pulled them up at times for a “callous and farcical” probe and even imposed a fine, which was later challenged in the high court.

    In the last few months, he has repeatedly sought the intervention of Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana to monitor the probe and take action against the erring police officers.

    In September, he had come down heavily on the police, saying that their failure to conduct a proper investigation will torment the “sentinels of democracy” when history will look back at the worst communal riots in the city since partition.

    In another case, Yadav had said that the standard of investigation in a large number of 2020 northeast riots cases is “very poor”.

    “This is really a sorry state of affairs,” he had observed in another case.

    He also objected to the “wrongly-clubbed FIRs” and recently ordered the separation of a trial based on their religion.

    Last year, the Delhi High Court had designated two sessions and two magisterial courts for the trial of communal violence cases registered in northeast and Shahdara districts of the national capital.

    Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, after violence between the Citizenship (Amendment) Act supporters and its protesters spiraled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

  • Delhi riots: ‘Sorry state of affairs’ says court after no progress in probe

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: “This is really a sorry state of affairs,” a Delhi court said on Tuesday, coming down heavily on the police for showing no progress in the investigation of a riots case months after registering the FIR.

    Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav made the remarks after he was apprised that no progress has been made in the investigation of a case registered in June 2021 on the complaint of one Nasir Ahmed and even the persons named in the FIR have not been interrogated.

    “This is really a sorry state of affairs,” ASJ Yadav said, adding that this case has not gotten the attention of either the Delhi Police Commissioner or the newly-constituted Special Investigation Cell (SIC) tasked to monitor the probe in the riots cases.

    He noted that the police is claiming that the circumstances during the riots in February 2020 and four weeks thereafter were difficult, followed by a pandemic due to which it could not investigate the cases properly.

    “I wonder whether the police can take the same excuse qua the investigation of the case, PS Gokalpuri. The answer has to be ‘clear No’,” ASG Yadav said.

    He directed the prosecutor to tell the court about the probe carried by the police on the next date of hearing and asked the copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for his reference and to take appropriate steps.

    Nasir Ahmed, a resident of Delhi’s Bhagirathi Vihar area, claimed that he witnessed the communal riots on February 24 and 25 and identified various persons out of a mob of 200-250 persons, who were rioting near Gokalpuri toll-tax.

    He claimed that on February 24, the mob put up a loud public address system and exhorted people to vandalize, rob, and put on fire the houses and shops of persons belonging to the other community while asserting that the police were with them.

    He said that the mob allegedly stopped the persons passing through that area and if found to be from the other community, they inflicted injuries upon them and burned their vehicles.

    On February 25, he claimed that the mob put his godown and three bikes on fire.

    He further said that on both dates, he made several calls to the police, but to no avail.

    Ahmed then made several complaints to the police, but no action was taken.

    He also received threats, following which the witness protection committee of the district asked the police to provide protection to him.

    He was then constrained to approach the High Court where for the first time the prosecutor said that his complaint dated March 18 had been clubbed with two different cases.

    Subsequently, Ahmed approached the district court seeking registration of a separate FIR in his case and not to treat his complaint as part of another case.

    The metropolitan magistrate allowed his plea on October 26 and directed the police to register the FIR.

    The police, however, challenged the order which was dismissed by ASJ Yadav on April 26.

    They were asked to register a separate FIR, which was done in June, almost two months after the court directions.

    The court will now hear the matter on October 22 on the point of charge.

    Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, after violence between the Citizenship (Amendment) Act supporters and its protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

  • Delhi riots: Court takes cue from judicial precedent of Godhra case, orders separation of trial

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Taking a cue from judicial precedent of Gujarat’s Godhra riots cases, a Delhi court on Tuesday ordered separation of trial of accused on the ground of their faith in a murder of a 24-year-old man during the north-east Delhi communal riots, saying there was an “assortment” of undertrials and one trial would prejudice their defence as they belong to Hindu and Muslim religions.

    Three Hindus and two Muslims were to face joint trial in case emanating from one FIR and they were charged with the offences of rioting, arson and murder of one Salman who had succumbed to gunshot injury allegedly inflicted upon him by a riotous mob in Delhi’s Shiv Vihar area on Febryary 24, 2020.

    A peculiar situation has arisen whether the trial can be permitted to proceed with assortment of accused persons from different religions purportedly acting under “two different conspiracies and unlawful assemblies,” Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said, adding that joint trial will definitely prejudice the defence of accused persons as they belong to different religions.

    The trial judge directed Joy N. Tirkey, DCP (Crime Branch), to furnish a complete set of charge sheet in physical form to the court within two weeks.

    Taking the precedent from the trial in the Godhra communal riots case, the judge said that he deems it appropriate to separate the trial of the accused persons “so that their defence does not get prejudiced”.

    “Similar situation had arisen before a Gujarat Court conducting the trial of Godhra Communal Riots wherein the High Court was pleased to authorize separation of trial of the accused persons from two different communities,” he said.

    He added, “Thereafter, Ahlmad (court official) of the court is directed to put up a separate Sessions Case number in the FIR and the existing charge sheet shall be treated as charge sheet for three accused persons namely, Kuldeep, Deepak Thakur and Deepak Yadav.”

    Meanwhile, the other charge sheet shall be treated as charge sheet for accused persons Mohd. Furkan and Mohd. Irshad, the judge added.

    The decision on separation of the trial came after the court framed charges in the case.

    The judge stated that there is enough material on record to frame charges against the five accused under the requisite sections.

    They have been charged under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 153-A (vilification or attacks upon the religion), 302 (murder), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance), 505 (intent to incite), 120-B (conspiracy), 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

    All the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial in the case.

  • Delhi riots: Umar Khalid withdraws bail plea after police objects to maintainability, files fresh appeal .

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, arrested under stringent anti-terror law UAPA in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, has withdrawn his bail application and filed a fresh one after the city police objected to its maintainability.

    Senior advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Khalid, told Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that the application seeking bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been substituted with the one under section 437 after the police objected to it.

    Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, representing the police, objected to the fresh plea that purportedly accused the prosecution of adopting “dilatory tactic” and called it “not fair”.

    “In the interim application you have filed, you have made certain allegations that the objections taken by the prosecution are dilatory tactics.

    Therefore, to paint the prosecution by saying that it is dilatory tactics is not fair,” the prosecutor said.

    The fresh application was filed after Prasad submitted that the court hearing the plea is a special court designated under UAPA Act and therefore exercises all powers that are before the Court of Magistrate within the rigours of section 437 of CrPC.

    ASJ Rawat sought the police reply on the fresh bail application and posted the matter to September 8.

    In the last hearing on the bail plea on September 3, Khalid told the court that the charge sheet in the case has made hyperbolic allegations without any factual basis and reads like a script from a web series and news channels.

    Delhi Police had earlier said the bail plea had no merit and that it will demonstrate the prima facie case against him before the court by referring to the charge sheet filed in the case.

    Khalid, along with several others, has been booked under the anti-terror law in the case.

    They are accused of being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 violence, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    He has sought bail in the case.

  • Why no FIR against Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra in Delhi riots case, asks UAPA accused

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association President Shifa-Ur-Rehman, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the Delhi riots asked in the court on Tuesday why no FIR was registered against Union Minister Anurag Thakur, BJP leader Kapil Mishra, and others for allegedly instigating riots.

    During the bail hearing, Shifa’s lawyer, Abhishek Singh, showed Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat a complaint filed by him on January 30, 2020, seeking registration of FIR against Thakur, Mishra, another BJP leader Parvesh Sharma, and Jamia Shooter Ram Bhakt Gopal for allegedly ‘instigating riots’.

    “Did the prosecution even bother to call them as witnesses or accused or issue a notice that we want to know something? Because they said ‘shoot xyz’ so they know who those people are. They will at least have some evidence. Why was no FIR registered against them? This was the complaint I was pursuing,” Singh said.

    ALSO READ | Delhi riots: Police told to submit status update of trials

    According to the complaint, as read by the lawyer in the court, Shifa mentioned that Mishra took out a rally in which slogans to shoot were raised, following which Thakur on January 28, 2020, said: “desh ke gaddaron ko….”

    In January 2020, Thakur had allegedly egged on participants of an election rally to raise an incendiary slogan.

    While the minister raised the slogan “Desh ke gaddaron ko…..(the traitors of the country)”, the crowd responded by chanting: “Goli maaro saalon ko…..(shoot them).”

    shifa is accused of collecting money to fund various sit-in protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).

    He, along with several others, has been booked under the anti-terror law in the case for being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 violence, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    Alluding to the alleged funding, the lawyer affirmed that Shifa had made “some financial arrangements” but questioned whether paying some protestors make it an offence under the stringent UAPA.

    Advocate Singh further emphasized that being a member or president of the alumni association or a protester is not an offence as people are entitled to their opinion and can peacefully protest against anything.

    ​ALSO READ | Umar Khalid calls Delhi riots conspiracy case ‘cooked up’, points to contradictions

    “Why have I been roped in? I fail to understand. There is a fundamental right to protest. If a certain section of society is aggrieved by certain legislation and protest against it, that is not a crime. They can protest,” the lawyer told the court.

    Furthermore, Shifa’s counsel sought bail for him saying that there has been a systematic violation of his fundamental rights and that he cannot be put in the bracket of rioters.

    He also read his WhatsApp chats to show that there was no instigation of violence.

    Besides him, former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and several others have also been booked under the stringent law in the case.