New Delhi, Dec 12 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on the bail plea by United Against Hate (UAH) founder Khalid Saifi in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots.

“Arguments have been heard. Judgement is reserved,” said a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar.

Also Read | Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case: How Long Can We Keep Ashish Mishra in Custody? Supreme Court Asks Uttar Pradesh Government.

Counsel for Saifi claimed that the accused did not even send a “single message where chakka jam is reflected” and no “terrorist activity” can be attributed to him.

“Whichever way you look, the evidence against Khalid Saifi is dubious. The only commonality between me and Umar Khalid whose bail application the court has rejected is (a meeting at Shaheen Bagh)… that is not evidence of conspiracy... rest is your (police) imagination and imagination has no place in criminal law,” senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Saifi argued.

Also Read | Consumer Price Index Numbers on Base 2012=100 for Rural, Urban and Combined for the Month of November 2022.

“It is time we put an end to imagination and fanciful theories,” she said.

Khalid Saifi and several others, including Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots in the North-East Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

John argued that a prima facie case is made out for the grant of bail to Saifi in the UAPA case and organising a protest is not a terrorist act.

She also contended that Saifi has not given any provocative speech and he cannot be “made responsible for what other (accused) are saying” while emphasising that he has been discharged in another riots case.

“This is not a discharge of insignificance. Of the three cases against me, I have only two (remaining). I am on bail in one, and one is this UAPA (case),” John said.

Delhi Police has opposed the bail plea, saying that its case against Saifi was “not a figment of imagination” and it was clear from the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the accused that protests against CAA and NRC had to be followed by chakka jam and then violence.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad has refuted Saifi's claim that he had no connection with co-accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, saying that the same was not borne from the material on record and his discharge in another riots case “does not take us to a logical end to say that there was no evidence".

Saifi, 42, has earlier argued that the case against him is not based on evidence but “frightening and alarming phrases” by the police and he cannot be kept in indefinite incarceration.

He has said that the whole FIR was set up on the “opinion of two-three men sitting in special cell office” and he has not committed any violence but he was a “victim of custodial violence”.

Saifi has been in custody in the present case since March 2020.

On October 18, the court refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid in the same case, saying he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)