Delhi riots larger conspiracy: “Act committed by one attributable to all co-conspirators”, argues Delhi police as Court reserves order
Justice Aravind Kumar questioned how a mere speech would fall under the definition of a “terrorist act” as defined under the UAPA.
Sadeeq Sherwani
Published on: 11 December 2025, 07:43 am
AS THE DELHI POLICE concluded its arguments on December 10, 2025, the Division Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar and comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria reserved the orders in the bail applications of the accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy case.
Responding to the arguments raised by the Petitioners in their rejoinders, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju doubled down on the accusations of a larger conspiracy. He told the Court that apart from being a distinct offence in itself, the law on conspiracy postulates that the acts committed by one can be attributed to all co-conspirators. Therefore, all the co-accused are liable for the acts committed by Sharjeel Imam.
ASG Raju: Petitioners have been refusing to argue on framing of charges
Addressing the argument on delay, Raju claimed that the Petitioners have been refusing to argue on the framing of charges. He told the Court that even though the charge-sheets were filed separately for different Petitioners, once they are filed and the offence is made out, the Petitioners will have to present their arguments on the framing of the charges.
Justice Kumar pointed out that the grievance of the accused is that the charge-sheets naming them were filed intermittently, due to which they were unable to argue on charge unless they were named in a charge-sheet. For this reason, Justice Kumar explained, the delay could not be attributed to them.
ASG Raju told the Court that apart from being a distinct offence in itself, the law on conspiracy postulates that the acts committed by one can be attributed to all co-conspirators.
However, the Additional Solicitor General insisted that the case of the Petitioners was that they would not argue on charge unless all the evidence had been placed on record. He contended that the trial court would not have taken cognizance of the chargesheet if it was unable to proceed with the case.
“The other evidence may or may not come,” Raju told the Court, “if it comes, the charge can be modified, but they will have to argue as and when chargesheets have been filed, and the court takes the cognizance.” He argued that the filing of the additional chargesheets had nothing to do with the delay.
Citing a precedent of the Supreme Court on Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Raju argued that additional documents cannot be considered at the stage of the framing of the charge, and the same will have to be done based solely on the evidence placed on record in the charge-sheet.
Differentiating the Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy case from the one being cited by Raju, Justice Kumar clarified that the question in the latter was whether the trial court can consider the material filed by the accused at the stage of the framing of the charge. He remarked that the Petitioners are not placing anything on record, but are rather asking the Delhi Police to put all the material on record.
“That material may never come”, Raju replied.
“Then you say so”, Justice Kumar told Raju.
“That is not relevant for the purpose of discharge”, Raju submitted as Justice Kumar reiterated that the case of the Petitioners is that the learned judge should have said so.
