
A Delhi court on Thursday denied bail to Jamia Coordination Committee member Safoora Zargar who has been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in a case related to the violence in northeast Delhi in February.
“When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire,” the court said while dismissing Zargar’s bail plea.
Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana said the investigation into the case had detected a larger conspiracy, and if there was prima evidence of conspiracy, acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators, it was admissible against all.
The court said that even if there was no direct act of violence attributable to Zargar, she cannot shy away from her liability under the UAPA provisions.
“The acts and inflammatory speeches of the co-conspirators are admissible under the Indian Evidence Act even against the accused,” it said. There was prima facie evidence that there was a conspiracy to at least block the roads, the court added.
During the hearing through video conferencing, the police told the court that Zargar, an MPhil student at Jamia Millia Islamia University, had allegedly given inflammatory speeches to incite a mob that led to the riots in February. However, Zargar’s counsel claimed that she had no role in the alleged criminal conspiracy in the case. The counsel alleged that the investigating agency was creating a “false narrative” to implicate innocent students who are against government’s policy or legislation.
Keeping in mind the “precarious medical condition” of Zargar, who is more than four months pregnant, the court asked the Tihar Jail Superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and assistance to her.
Zargar was arrested on April 13, with police claiming she was among those who organised an anti-CAA protest and road blockade under the Jafrabad Metro station in Delhi on February 22-23. At the time of her arrest, Zargar was 13 weeks pregnant. Last month too, Zargar’s counsel had sought bail and told the Delhi court that she has been falsely implicated and was not named in the FIR. However, it was rejected.