Umar Khalid Arrested in 2nd Case, Sent to 3-Day Police Custody

This FIR, registered on 25 February 2020, investigates the violence in the Khajuri Khas area of north-east Delhi.

File image of Umar Khalid, used for representational purposes.

(Photo: Altered by Kamran Akhter/The Quint)

Former JNU student and UAPA accused Umar Khalid has been arrested under FIR 101, registered with Crime Branch on Thursday, 1 October. He has also been sent to three-day police custody for further investigation, The Quint has learnt.

This is the second FIR under which Khalid has been formally arrested. This FIR, registered on 25 February 2020, investigated the violence in the Khajuri Khas area of northeast Delhi.

The first is FIR 59, where, along with other charges of rioting and criminal conspiracy, the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) had also been invoked.

What Does the Charge Sheet Say About Khalid?

The charge sheet primarily focuses on the alleged involvement of former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain. However, it makes repeated mentions of him along with Khalid.

Most significantly, this charge sheet speaks of the 8 January meeting where the trio of Hussain, Khalid Saifi and Khalid allegedly met to plan these riots at Shaheen Bagh.

The charge sheet reads: “He (Tahir Hussain) was found connected to Khalid Saifi and Khalid who are part of a larger group of persons who were organising riots and protests in Delhi.”

This is a hole in the narrative of the Delhi Police on the alleged conspiracy, The Quint had revealed in a story.

There is also a flow chart which allegedly shows ‘Tahir Hussain speaking and connecting with a host of other co-conspirators’. There are 21 names in this flow chart with Khalid’s name featuring prominently on it.

What Are the Sections Under FIR 101

The various sections of the FIR are: Section 109 (punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 395 (punishment for dacoity), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or ten rupees), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 454 (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence etc), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief ), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act as well as 25/27 Arms Act.

‘Khalid’s Lawyers Were Not Informed’

Reacting to his arrest, Banojyotsana Lahiri, Khalid's friend and member of United Against Hate, said, “Surprise surprise! Umar who spent 10 days in police custody with hardly any 'interrogation' has now been 'arrested' in FIR no 101 PS Khajuri Khas. He was interrogated once before on 3 September 2020 by the crime branch in this very case for almost the entire day. He cooperated and left only when the police had finished questioning him. His interrogation was from about 11.30 am to 5.30 pm. The FIR has been registered on 25 February, it is clear that the police did not even find the need to arrest or even interrogate him till September.”

Coming to Khalid’s arrest today, Lahiri said, “Today, just hours before his legal mulaqat (meeting), he was whisked away to an appearance before a 'duty magistrate' after arrest in jail, told him that they have provided him a 'legal aid counsel' when he insisted that his legal mulaqat (meeting) was due in a short while and even named his lawyers and asked for them on VC or phone. He, however, was not provided that facility and nor were his lawyers informed. His remand hearing was done hurriedly with the aim to deny him access to counsel and his family, friends and lawyers then presented with a fait accompli.”