The Delhi High Court on Tuesday has dismissed Khalid Saifi’s plea challenging a trial court’s decision to charge him with attempted murder related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
Saifi, founder of Court United Against Hate and a prominent figure in the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests, sought to quash these serious allegations, asserting that there was no substantial basis for them.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, presiding over the case, upheld the trial court’s finding, which determined there were sufficient grounds to charge Saifi with attempted murder, alongside other offenses linked to the violence that led to over 50 deaths in the region.
Saifi’s legal counsel argued against the application of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to attempted murder, especially after the charges under the Arms Act were dropped.
The defense contended that no weapon had been recovered and that there was no direct evidence linking Saifi to any gunfire during the riots.
Earlier this year, a Delhi court had framed charges against Saifi, including attempted murder, rioting, and unlawful assembly, in connection with the events of February 2020. In related developments, the Delhi High Court has also postponed bail hearings for former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
Both are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in relation to an alleged broader conspiracy behind the communal riots.
The bail pleas were scheduled to be reviewed anew by a division bench consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, alongside similar petitions from other co-accused, including Saifi.
However, the bench did not convene on the scheduled date, resulting in an adjournment of these bail applications to November 25, 2024.
The situation surrounding Saifi and his co-accused highlights the ongoing legal battles stemming from the violent riots that erupted in North East Delhi, reflecting broader tensions and complexities within the socio-political landscape of the region.
As the case unfolds, it continues to attract significant public attention, particularly regarding issues of dissent, activism, and the judicial process in cases involving allegations of terrorism and communal violence.
