Senior Advocate Trideep Pais representing Khalid, emphasised that no violence or funding could be traced or attributed to the accused and there was no rational basis to make him an accused.
“There’s no rational basis. It shows motive. You have a person who speaks out against the State and you want to frame him,” Pais said.
The Senior Counsel also told Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat about alleged contradictions in the chargesheet, pointing out how Khalid was accused of starting a WhatsApp group of which he was not even a member.
It was pointed out that one Kunal Fatime started the group. “When she is not an accused, how could I be made an accused,” Pais demanded. He also clarified that it was not his argument that people associated with Khalid must be made accused.
“I am saying no one should have been made an accused,” Pais contended.
At this juncture, the Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad remarked that a lot of which was being stated was imagination, to which Pais responded, “Actually it’s not my imagination. I’m only reading from the chargesheet.”
While reading the chargesheet, it was also brought to the Court’s notice that work had been allotted to others to organise protests as opposed to Khalid who was not allotted anything.
“How am I behind bars when other people have been ascribed roles in the first DPSG meeting?”
During the previous hearing, Pais had argued that the prosecution’s “wish to paint every accused with one brush” would crumble once the chargesheet filed in the case was examined.
The arguments are set to continue on 8 November.
Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student was arrested on September 14th 2020 by the Delhi Police’s special cell for his alleged role in the riots that broke out in north-east neighbourhoods of the national capital in February this year.
Umar Khalid was earlier charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in another case related to the riots.