‘False, Fictitious Case’: Kafeel Khan After Being Freed From Jail

Soon after his release, the doctor also expressed apprehension that the UP government can frame him in another case.

Soon after his release, Kafeel Khan expressed apprehension that the UP government can frame him in another case.

(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

Video Editor: Deepthi Ramdas

Dr Kafeel Khan was freed from the Mathura jail late on Tuesday, 1 September, hours after the Allahabad High Court revoked the National Security Act (NSA) charges against him and directed his immediate release.

Soon after his release, the doctor told the media, "(The court order showed) that the UP government made a case that was false, baseless and fictitious. I was kept for eight months, for five days I wasn't given any food or water. I also thank the UP STF (Special Task Force) as I was not killed in an encounter while being brought from Mumbai to Mathura."

However, he also expressed apprehension that the Uttar Pradesh government can frame him in another case, reported news agency PTI.

ROW OVER RELEASE

A row had earlier erupted over Khan not being released for several hours after the Allahabad High Court order, with the family calling for filing a contempt petition in the court, reported NDTV.

Reports had earlier pointed out that Mathura jail superintendent purportedly had not received the court orders, with Khan's lawyer having alleged that the Aligarh district magistrate was also not meeting him.

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY?

Khan was arrested on the night of 30 January with assistance from the Mumbai Police at the airport when arrived in the city to attend anti-CAA protests. Quoting Dr Kafeel Khan’s speech from 12 December 2019 at Aligarh Muslim University, on the basis of which he was detained, the court, on Tuesday, said:

“A complete reading of the speech prima facie does not disclose any effort to promote hatred or violence. It also no where threatens peace and tranquility of the city of Aligarh. The address gives a call for national integrity and unity among the citizens. The speech also deprecates any kind of violence. It appears that the district magistrate had selective reading and selective mention for few phrases from the speech ignoring its true intent.”