Umar Khalid Labels Delhi Riots FIR a 'Joke,' Alleges Widespread Evidence Fabrication

In a dramatic turn of events within the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case, activist Umar Khalid has vehemently dismissed the First Information Report (FIR) against him, branding it a 'joke' before a Delhi court. During his arguments on charges framed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Khalid’s defense powerfully asserted that the evidence presented against him has been deliberately fabricated to ensure his false implication.

Khalid, who has been in judicial custody since September 2020, appeared before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, where his legal team meticulously laid out his defense.

His impassioned submission highlighted what he described as glaring inconsistencies and a complete lack of substantive proof, arguing that the entire case against him is built on a foundation of manufactured allegations rather than verifiable facts.

The FIR, numbered 59/2020, pertains to the alleged 'larger conspiracy' behind the horrific riots that gripped Delhi in February 2020, claiming dozens of lives and causing widespread destruction.

Khalid is among several individuals accused of orchestrating these events, with charges ranging from conspiracy to terrorism.

A significant point of contention raised by Khalid’s counsel revolved around the statements of a 'protected witness.' The defense team meticulously dissected these statements, arguing that they were not only unreliable but appeared to be coerced or manipulated to fit a predetermined narrative, directly implicating Khalid without credible corroboration.

This, they contended, is a clear indicator of the fabricated nature of the evidence.

Khalid's legal team further argued that the prosecution's case relies heavily on selective interpretations and out-of-context statements, rather than a holistic and fair assessment of his actions and intentions.

They reiterated that his involvement, as portrayed by the prosecution, is a malicious fabrication designed to silence dissent and punish critical voices. The activist maintained that his activities were always within the bounds of peaceful protest and democratic expression, directly challenging the narrative of him being a conspirator.

This ongoing legal battle is not merely a fight for Umar Khalid's personal liberty but also casts a spotlight on the broader implications of UAPA cases and the process of evidence collection in high-profile political trials in India.

As the court weighs the arguments, the fundamental questions of due process, truth, and justice hang precariously in the balance, underscoring the complexities and deeply contentious nature of the Delhi riots conspiracy case.