Delhi Riots Case: Delhi riots accused Sharjeel Imam told a magistrate on Thursday that the police's recrimination that Umar Khalid was his mentor or guru was completely false. Sharjeel Imam moreover personal that the two did not interact during their time at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
What did Sharjeel Imam’s lawyer say?
According to a report by Bar and Bench, lawyer Tayyab Mustafa, seeming for Imam surpassing Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court, said that there was no connection between his vendee and Khalid.
"During my five years at JNU, I never spoke to Umar Khalid. I don't know what coordination they (the police) are talking about. To prove a conspiracy, it is necessary to show an try-on between us. But they have failed to show any such agreement," Khalid's lawyer stated.
The lawyer emphasized that the allegations that Khalid had given instructions to Imam were false.
"There is only one meeting where Umar and I are seen together. But the witness to that meeting reveals that there was no discussion on violence," he said.
Mustafa said that large-scale protests were taking place versus the amended Citizenship Act in 2020, and just considering several accused were protesting versus this law does not midpoint there was a conspiracy. He remoter argued that Sharjeel Imam had never supported violent protests.
"My chats, my pamphlets, and my speeches... they requirement that I wanted violence, that I wanted riots and people to be killed. But violence was never discussed in any of my meetings. On the contrary, I spoke well-nigh non-violence," Sharjeel Imam said.
Mustafa was presenting his arguments in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. The magistrate is currently hearing arguments on framing of charges. The lawyers for the other accused may present their arguments next week.
What did the Delhi Police say?
The Delhi Police has so-called that Imam, Khalid, and several others were involved in conspiring to commit violence during the 2020 Delhi riots. The prosecution has invoked provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in this case.
