Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Order: May 22, 2025

A system on trial

In a powerful assertion of personal liberty over procedural inertia, the Supreme Court of India intervened to grant bail to Lakshya Tawar, a man whose plea for release had been adjourned an astonishing 27 times by the Allahabad High Court. Having already spent over four years in detention, Tawar’s case became a flashpoint for judicial delay. The apex court’s decision was not a commentary on the merits of the criminal allegations against Tawar but a sharp rebuke of a system that allowed a bail hearing—a matter of fundamental rights—to languish indefinitely. “In matters of personal liberty,” the bench led by Chief Justice Gavaideclared in its order, “the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time.”^[1] The ruling serves as a critical case study on the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of Article 21 and the dire consequences when procedural delays effectively negate the right to a timely hearing.

The factual background: A labyrinth of deferrals

Lakshya Tawar was arrested, facing serious charges of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. His bail application was filed in the Allahabad High Court.

What followed was not a swift adjudication but a cycle of repeated deferrals. Over the course of his plea, the matter was adjourned 27 times. During the proceedings, the High Court took note of Tawar’s “long criminal history of thirty-three cases” and, in its order of March 20, 2025, adjourned the case for another two weeks. It directed the trial court to first record the evidence of the complainant before it would reconsider the bail plea. While this might appear as a measure of due diligence, for a man already incarcerated for four years, it represented yet another hurdle in a seemingly endless procedural maze. It was this pattern of delay that propelled the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s intervention: A decisive rebuke

On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court expressed its unequivocal disapproval. “How can the high court adjourn a bail hearing 27 times in a matter related to personal liberty?” Chief Justice Gavai pointedly asked. The Court noted that it would “normally not have entertained the matter” challenging adjournments, but the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of this case, namely the extraordinary number of deferrals, demanded an exception.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was based on a confluence of factors:

1. The Egregious Delay: The 27 adjournments were the primary catalyst, which the Court viewed as a de facto denial of justice.
2. Prolonged Incarceration: Tawar had already been imprisoned for over four years.
3. Fulfilment of High Court’s Condition: The complainant’s evidence—the very reason for the High Court’s last adjournment—had since been recorded.

Finding the High Court’s inaction indefensible, the Supreme Court directly granted bail to Tawar, rendering the application pending before the Allahabad High Court “infructuous.” By doing so, it sent a powerful signal that procedural failings impinging on fundamental rights would not be tolerated.

Upholding the spirit of Article 21

This case is a potent illustration of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty “except according to procedure established by law.” The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, notably in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, has established that this procedure must be “just, fair, and reasonable.” The right to a speedy trial, articulated in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, is a cornerstone of this principle.

The Tawar judgment extends this logic forcefully to pre-trial proceedings. Indefinite detention caused by the repeated adjournment of a bail hearing is a clear violation of fair procedure. By intervening, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial discretion in managing dockets is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a manner that erodes fundamental rights. The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” is rarely more applicable than when an individual’s liberty is suspended in a state of indefinite judicial limbo. However, whether the Supreme Court and judiciary as a whole will apply this standard in dealing with the delayed bail for political prisoners, especially in the context of cases like Umar Khalid’s is a question that is yet to be answered.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

^[1] Para 5, Lakshya Tawar v. CBI[SLP(Crl.) No. 5480/2025

Related:

“Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders release of Goalpara man picked up despite complying with bail conditions

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

The post SC intervenes for personal liberty after HC adjourns a bail application 27 times! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

NEW DELHI: India’s 50^th Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud stated that judges at the lower levels of the judiciary, the grassroots are reluctant to give bail due to the fear of being targeted for granting it in heinous case. He was speaking at an occasion organised by the Bar Council of India on Saturday, November 19 reports PTI.

 “The higher judiciary is flooded with bail applications due to reluctance at grassroots to grant bail. Judges at the grassroots are reluctant to grant bail not because they do not understand crime but there is a sense of fear of being targeted for granting bail in heinous cases,” Chandrachud said.

Union Minister for Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju, who was also present at the occasion, disapproved of protests by certain lawyer bodies against the recommendations of the SC collegium to transfer some high court judges. “I heard some lawyers want to meet the CJI regarding transfers. It can be an individual issue but if it becomes a recurring instance for every decision by the collegium, then where will it lead to”, he said.

 Bar bodies of Gujarat, Telangana and Madras high courts had protested against the decision of the collegium to transfer some judges.

The CJI has agreed to meet the Gujarat high court Advocates’ Association on Monday in view of the ongoing protest by lawyers opposing the SC collegium’s recommendation to transfer Justice Nikhil S Kariel to the Patna high court.

 Chandrachud also said that when the lawyers strike, the consumer of justice suffers, the person for whom justice is meant, and not the judges or the lawyers. He also said harmony and balance are crucial to maintain the tranquility of society and courts as institutions of governance in the country have a role to define that sense of harmony and balance.

The collegium had recently recommended transfer of three high court judges for administrative reasons, sources said. The collegium is learnt to have transferred Madras high court acting chief justice T Raja to the Rajasthan high court, while Justice Kariel and Justice A Abhishek Reddy have been transferred to the Patna high court. Media reports on collegium resolutions have led to eruption of lawyers’ protest in the Gujarat HC and Telangana HC. 

Related:

What CJI Chandrachud’s two-year tenure looks like

The post Lower court judges hesitant to give bail: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On February 14, a Mumbai Court denied bail to Delhi University professor Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members Sagar Gorkhe, Ramesh Gaichor and Jyoti Jagtap, accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. As per the Special Court Judge Dinesh E Kothalikar, there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations were prima facie true and hence the bail was denied.

Brief background of the case 

Kabir Kala Manch was one of the 250 Dalit and human rights organisations that participated in the Elgar Parishad, an event that took place in Pune city on December 31, 2017, a day before violent clashes broke out between Maratha and Dalit groups near the village of Bhima  Koregaon.

On July 28, 2020,  Hany Babu , Associate Professor at Delhi University (accused no.12)  was arrested on the accusation for commission of offences punishable under Sections 121, (waging, attempting or abetting waging of war against the Government of India) 121A (conspiracy to commit offences punishable U/S 121), 124A (Sedition), 153A ( promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, place of birth, race, language etc) , 505(1) (b) (statements conducing to public mischief) 115 (Abetment of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life- if not committed), 120B (criminal conspiracy) , 201 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information) read with 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (punishment fo terrorist act), 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 18A (organising of terrorist camps), 18B (recruiting of any person/s for terrorist act), 20 (being member of terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (membership of terrorist organisation) and 39 (support given to terrorist organisation) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He was alleged to be the member of the CPI (Maoist) deemed a terrorist organisation under the first schedule of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and that he was in correspondence with the members of CPI (Maoist).

Further it was also alleged that he had organised and participated in a committee that was constituted to provide legal defence to members of CPI(Maoist), helped in raising funds in order to help persons who were charged with membership of CPI (Maoist) after they were released from prison, and inculcated Maoist sympathies amongst students and other people.  

Pune Police filed charge-sheet and a supplementary charge-sheet in this case on November 15, 2018, and February 21, 2019, respectively against the accused Gorkhe (accused no. 13) Gaichor (accused no. 14) and Jyoti Jagtap (accused no. 15) are all members of Kabir Kala Manch.

On September 7, 2020,Gorkhe and Gaichor were arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence. The following day, Jagtap was also taken into NIA custody on the accusation for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1) (b), 115, 120B, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

All the arrests in what came to be known as the ‘Bhima Koregaon case’ can be traced back to an FIR dated January 8, 2018, filed by Tushar Ramesh Damgude under Section 153A, 505(1)(b), and 117 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that was originally registered by the Pune police for “inciting people and giving provocative speeches during Elgar Parishad organised at Shaniwarwada in Pune by the activists of Kabir Kala Manch on December 31, 2017, which promoted enmity between various caste groups and led to violence, resulting in loss of life and property and State-wide agitation in Maharashtra.”

On January 24, 2020, the NIA took over the investigation of the case and stated that it was revealed during the investigation that the organizers of Elgar Parishad were in contact with the senior leaders of CPI (Maoist). 

Background of the accused

Hany Babuis a professor of language and linguistics at the Department of English at the Delhi University. He has published various articles such as: “Converging struggles and diverging interests: A look at the recent unrest in universities.”, “Unequal rights: Freedom, equality, life and liberty of citizens”, and so on.

Sagar TatyaramaGorkhe belongs to a Dalit family who had an unstable childhood in Pune. His parents moved from suburb to suburb taking up jobs as construction workers, security guards and domestic workers. In 2004 he joined the Kabir Kala Manch. As a student, he worked as a sweeper and a car cleaner to be able to pay for college, but later he worked full-time with Kabir Kala Manch.

Ramesh Gaichor is the son of MurlidharGaichor, andhails from the Maratha community. But he had friends from Dalit groups through whom he was introduced to the message of Babasaheb Ambedkar. When he joined Kabir Kala Manch in 2002, he was a commerce student at Wadia College, but spent more of his time writing plays and participating in cultural activities.He was good in studies in school, liked to write poetry and perform in plays. He was also interested in social work, and doing good for the poor. Since the Manch did not make too much money through their performances, Gaichor also worked part-time jobs as a hospital clerk and a lecturer over the years. 

Jyoti Jagtapwas a fiery social activist in Seva Dal, a socialist youth group in Pune district’s Saswad towneven before she joined Kabir Kala Manch in 2007. She was a psychology student at Saswad’sWaghire College at the time, and took up a range of women’s issues in her activism. In 2007, Jagtap moved to Pune to pursue a Master’s degree in psychology from SP College, and soon got involved with Kabir Kala Manch. Her role mostly involved planning dharnas and protests. She worked full-time at Kabir Kala Manch till 2017, after which she along with her colleague Jadhav began working with a non-profit organisation working with teenagers.

Application for bail of Hany Babu 

Reliance was placed by the court on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

ThwahaFasal Vs Union of India (2021 SCC Online 1000) which lays down the law as to what should be the approach of the Court in deciding bail applications involving offences underChapters IV and VI of the UAP Act.

Keeping in mind the above judgement the Court considered the totality of the material produced along with the charge sheet for deciding the application. 

The learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Gaikawad, prayed to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and release him on bail as according to him even if the allegations made against the applicant is considered it only amounts to an offence punishable under Sections 38 and 39 of the UAP Act 

To this the Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Shetty submitted the existence of sufficient material against the applicant and the co accused showing their involvement in the activities of banned organisation and their involvement in the larger conspiracy. Reference was made to certain letters seized from the computers and electronic devices of the applicant and the co-accused during search, which showed how they were involved in the functioning of the banned organisation, and the severity of the conspiracy. Therefore, he prayed to reject the application. 

The learned SPP has also drew attention to a pamphlet which ends with thename of the committee for the defence and release of GN Saibaba, and was sufficient to prima facie establish that the applicant was instrumental for the release of the convict GN Saibaba,who was convicted for the activities of the CPI (Maoist).

In addition to this there was also a statement of the witness that corroborated with the contents of the documentary evidence. Another witness stated that theapplicant was a Maoist sympathiser. The prosecution further claimed that the applicant and the co accused have conspired with each other and the other accused to further ideology of the CPI(Maoist) and that they had abetted the act of waging war against the Government of India, brought into hatred and excited disaffection towards the Government and promoted enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, caste or community and committed acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Considering the circumstances along with the subject of law, the Court concluded that theapplicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. 

Gorkhe, Gaichor and Jagtap’s case

A report lodged at Vishrambaug Police Station on January 08, 2018, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claimed that a program was organized at Shaniwar Wada, Pune on December 12, 2017 by an Elgar Parishad wherein some performers enacted short plays, performed dances and sang songs which were provocative in nature and had effect of creating communal disharmony. It further added that the members of Kabir Kala Manch spread hatred through their songs, plays and speeches which caused enmity between different communities and resulted in the incidents of violence, arson and stone pelting near Bhima Koregaon.

Arguments

The Counsel for accused Nos.13 and 14, Mr. Rathod, submitted that it is required to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused, are prima facie true. In support of the submission reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of ThwahaFasal Vs Union of India (2021 SCC Online SC 1000).

The counsel for accused No.15 Mr. Shaikh has relied upon the judgment in the case of Jayanta Kumar Ghosh Vs State of Assam {(2010) 6 GLR 727}, in which the word ‘prima facie’ coupled with the word ‘true’, implied an exercise of crosschecking the truthfulness of the allegations, made in the complaint, on the basis of the materials on record. 

Rathod submitted that the accused have already prosecuted for the offences under the UAPA and they were released on bail in C.R. No.19 of 2011 by ATS Mumbai therefore on the basis of the similar allegations they cannot be prosecuted, hence prayed to release the accused on bail.

In response SPP Mr. Shetty brought attention to the copy of supplementary Chargesheet and submitted that in the said case the accused were arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B of the IP Code and Sections 18, 18A,18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAP Act, whereas in this case they have been arrested for commission of the offences punishable under Sections121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 115, 120B, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18A,18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAP Act, therefore, it cannot be claimed that it cannot the accused have been prosecuted twice for the same offence.

It was further submitted that the material placed on record indicates that after their releaseon bail the accused were involved in furthering unlawful activities of the banned organisation.  

Counsels for the accused submitted that the prosecution failed to place on record material to state that the accused were the members of the Kabir Kala Manch and it cannot be inferred that the Kabir Kala Manch was the frontal organisation of the CPI (Maoist), the Terrorist Organisation and claimed the absence of prima facie evidence against the accused persons.

Shetty stated that the Central Government passed an order to add the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and all its formations and frontal organisations as terrorist organisation in the Schedule to the UAP Act by making corresponding amendment and further submitted that the existence of sufficient material against the applicants and the co accused that showed their involvement in the activities of banned organisation by being its active members. 

The prosecution also placed on record certain documents recovered from the pen drive of accused P. Varavara Rao issued by the Central Committee of Communist Party of India (Maoist) and divided into different Parts and Chapters. 

The prosecution further claimed that another document was recovered from the pen drive of accused P. Varavara Rao, which deals with the work in urban areas which is also a literature of the banned organisation.

To this Shaikh submitted that the applicants were only the part of the group of performers and were not assigned with specific role in the Parishad and even if it is said that they were members of banned organisation, that itself is not a crime and to substantiate his contention  he relied upon few judgments which had common held that “mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence” 

It was also submitted that the Elgaar Parishad was organised by Kishor Kamble and the 

report of the same was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch1,

Pune City, which contains the script of the speeches given by all the performers which reveals that there is no incriminating material against the applicants. 

Grounds for denying bail to Hany Babu

In Hany Babu’s case, the court held that there was every scope to prima facie conclude that the applicant was having knowledge in respect of the conspiracy behind the violence. While the applicant had submitted that bail be granted since trial is yet to begin, the prosecution said that the same was halted for framing of charges since many applications are being moved.

The court denied bail saying, “Upon cumulative consideration of all the aforesaid circumstances as well as law on the subject, I conclude that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail”.

Grounds for denying bail to other accused

The court noted, “It is material to note that the material placed on record prima facie establishes that the applicants were actively involved in the organisation of Elgaar Parishad.”

The court, after perusal of material held that,

“Prima facie it can be gathered that the applicants along with other members of the banned organisation hatched a serious conspiracy to create unrest in the entire country and to overpower the Government, politically. The material placed on record thus prima facie denote that the applicants were not only the members of banned organisation CPI (Maoist), but they were carrying out activities further in the objective of the organisation which is nothing but to overthrow the democracy of the nation. Therefore, I do not find merit in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicants that only because of membership of banned organisation the applicant cannot be detained in jail, is not acceptable.”

The court also pointed out that the mere fact that the applicant was not present in Pune at the time of the Elgaar Parishad and that he has not been named in the FIR would not take his defence further.

The counsel for the applicant had brought the court’s attention to the proceeding ofthe Maharashtra Legislative Assembly wherein then Chief Minister Mr. Devendra Fadnavis, had informed the house that 1,100 to 1,200 persons holding saffron flags were assembled at village Wadu near the Samadhi of Chhatrapati Sambhaji.

However, the court refused to take the same on record while stating that,

“In view Section 43D(5) of the Act as the court is required to form the opinion on perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Therefore, it can be said that the court in order to form the opinion is required to peruse the case diary or the report under Section 173 of the Code. Thus, I do not find merit in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicants.”

The court held that “there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation of commission of the offences punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA against the applicant is prima facie true,” and thus denied bail to the three accused.

Bail orders may be read here: 

Related: 

CJP writes to Maha HM demanding action against hate monger Milind Ekbote
Serial Hate Offender Milind Ekbote gets bail despite previous track record
SC dismisses NIA appeal against default bail to Sudha Bharadwaj

The post Bhima Koregaon case: NIA court denies bail to Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Last week, courts in Haridwar refused to grant bail to two accused in the ‘Dharam Sansad’ case Yati Narsinghanand and Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly known as Wasim Rizvi) for delivering hate speeches at the religious conclave held between December 17 to December 19, 2021.

Tyagi was the first to get arrested in the case, and a few days later Narsinghanand was also arrested. It is apparent that both arrests were made after the Supreme Court took cognisance of a petition seeking criminal action in the case which was previously ignored by the Haridwar Police. Even now, the criticism is that important sections of the Penal code that apply in the case have not been invoked and that all the speakers of the event who made the incendiary speeches have not been arrested.

Narsinghanand was arrested on January 15 from Sarvanand Ghat where he was staging a ‘satyagraha’ against the arrest of Tyagi. Yati’s bail was rejected by Chief Judicial magistrate Mukesh Arya while Tyagi’s abil was rejected by the Sessions Court judge Ritesh Kumar Shrivastava.

Tyagi was booked under section 153A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer opposed the bail application stating that Tyagi had made several statements against a particular religion and had incited communal disharmony by making objectionable comments against Prophet Mohammad.

The court observed that Tyagi had criminal antecedents and was booked for similar offences in the past. Taking this into account and the graveness of the offences invoked against him, the court refused to grant him bail.

The Sessions Court order may be read here:

Narsinghanand was denied bail in two cases, one for making hate speeches in ‘Dharam Sansad’ and other for his derogatory remarks against Muslim women. In the latter, he was booked under sections 295A and 509 of the IPC. He had alleged that Muslim women acted as mistresses of politicians. He has been under judicial custody since January 16.

Narsinghanand stated in his bail application that the FIR was filed against him in a delayed manner and that the FIR does not mention the comments made by him.

The court observed that despite notices being issued against him under section 41A of CrPC, Narsinghanand continued to make inflammatory comments and there was a possibility that due to such comments, serious crimes could be committed in the area. The court rejected his bail noting that the offences against him were grave in nature.

In the case related to hate speeches made by him at Dharam Sansad, Narsinghanand made similar submissions. However, the court observed that as per the case diary, the statements made by Narsinghanand had the potential to disturb communal harmony in the area and that it is evident that his statements were inflammatory and could provoke communal disturbances and violence in the area as well. The court thus rejected bail noting that the allegations against Narsinghanand were grave.

The Chief Magistrate court’s order may be read here:

In related news, the Attorney General of India has granted consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Narsinghanand for making derogatory comments against the Supreme Court of India and for undermining  its authority.

Another accused in the Dharam Sansad case, Swami Prabodhanand Giri, has sought quashing of the FIR filed against him in the case and Uttarakhand High Court has issued notice to the state in the matter.

Related:

Narsinghanand arrested: Is it for Hate Speech or misogyny?
Contempt plea against Yati Narsinghanand receives AG’s consent
PM Modi’s maun over the genocide call speaks volumes

The post Dharm Sansad: Haridwar local courts deny bail to hate mongers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While denying bail to accused Mohd. Ibrahim in the murder case of head constable Ratan Lal during the communal violence last year, the high court has ruled that the violence did not take place in a spur of the moment, and that “the conduct of the protesters who are present in the video footage which has been placed on record by the prosecution visibly portrays that it was a calculated attempt to dislocate the functioning of the Government as well as to disrupt the normal life of the people in the city.”

Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “The systematic disconnection and destruction of the CCTV cameras also confirms the existence of a pre-planned and premeditated conspiracy to disturb law and order in the city. This is also evident from the fact that innumerable rioters ruthlessly descended with sticks, dandas, bats etc. upon a hopelessly outnumbered cohort of police officials.”

Even though Ibrahim was not present at the crime scene, the court observed that he clearly was a part of the mob for the sole reason that “the Petitioner (Ibrahim) had consciously travelled 1.6 kms away from his neighbourhood with a sword which could only be used to incite violence and inflict damage.”

Justice Prasad said that the footage of Ibrahim with the sword is “quite egregious”, and is therefore sufficient to keep him in custody. By identifying him in multiple pieces of footage, the court called it “clinching evidence” and that “tilts this Court towards prolonging the incarceration of the Petitioner is that the weapon which is being carried by the Petitioner is capable of causing grievous injuries and/or death, and is prima facie a dangerous weapon.”

Ibrahim argued before the court that he was not part of the violence or the anti-CAA protests, and that the deadly nature of the violence prompted both Hindus and Muslims to guard their neighbourhoods by carrying various weapons to be able to defend themselves only in the event of an attack as the police had allegedly become either mere spectators or were helping the rioters. But the court refused to entertain this argument.

Eleven people applied for bail in the same case related to the murder of head constable Ratan Lal during the violence. On September 14, the high court granted bail to Shahnawaz and Mohd. Ayyub, and dismissed the bail pleas of Sadiq and Irshad Ali. On September 3, the high court pulled up the Police for their vague evidence and general allegations, granting bail to 5 accused- Mohd. Arif, Shadab Ahmad, Furkan, Suvaleen and Tabassum.

Despite several judgments rapping the Police for their callous investigation into the violence, some right-wing supremacists have lauded this order that called it a planned conspiracy. It is noteworthy to mention that hate monger Kapil Mishra took to Twitter to reiterate the court’s order and blame the “pseudo intellectuals and senior journalists” who allegedly spun a false narrative and targeted him.

He said, “the court said this was pre planned. We have also been saying the same thing. Weapons and bombs were collected and Delhi was burnt. Thousands would have been killed if we had not reached Maujpur chowk….weapons were collected in Tahir Hussain’s house.”

दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने दिल्ली दंगो का सच बता ही दिया

दिल्ली दंगे सुनियोजित तैयारी से, हथियार इक्कठे करके यमुना विहार, भजनपुरा, करावल नगर, गोकलपुरी , जमनापार के हजारों लोगों को मारने की योजना थी

इन आतंकियों के बचाने वाला गैंग मेरे खिलाफ झूठे इल्ज़ाम लगाता रहा pic.twitter.com/pgAPdMnQPm

— Kapil Mishra (@KapilMishra_IND) September 28, 2021

Tahir Hussain’s brother, Shah Alam, was recently granted bail by the district court, after criticising the Delhi Police for their callous attitude. ASJ Vinod Yadav said, “The police seem to be still busy filing supplementary chargesheets therein. The precious judicial time of this Court is being wasted in giving dates in those cases…where there is hardly any investigation carried out by the police.”

The court expressed its anger at the fact that the Alam, along with co-accused Rashid and Shadab were neither specifically named in the FIR, nor a particular role was assigned to them. This was followed by the observation that, “The sort of investigation conducted in the instant case and the lack of supervision thereof by the superior officers clearly depicts that the investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes and nothing else.”

Shifting the focus back to Kapil Mishra, his video of issuing an ultimatum to Delhi police and suggesting that his people would “take the law into their own hands” should the police fail to evict anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protesters from near the Jafrabad metro station, was played before the Delhi High Court in February last year.

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Talwant Singh had decided to play the video during hearing a plea seeking lodging of FIRs and arrests of those involved in the violence over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The court had reportedly asked the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, to advise the police commissioner on lodging of FIRs relating to the alleged hate speeches delivered by three BJP leaders – Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, and Parvesh Verma. 

The bench had also asked SG Mehta and Deputy Commissioner of Police (crime branch) if they had seen the videos and when the bench was informed that they didn’t come across the video of Mishra’s speech, Justice Muralidhar had said, “There are so many TVs in your office, how can a police officer say that he hasn’t watched the videos? I’m really appalled by the state of affairs of Delhi Police”, reported LiveLaw.

CJP had also started an online petition appealing to the Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, to hold Kapil Mishra accountable for raising slogans like “shoot the traitor” and prosecuting him.

The order may be read here:

Related:

After 17 months in jail, two accused get bail in the Delhi violence 2020 case
Delhi Violence: Courts call Delhi Police’s investigation ‘callous, inefficient, indolent and lackadaisical’
Delhi violence: HC denies bail to two accused based on CCTV camera footage
CJP’s online petition to CJI: Hold Kapil Mishra accountable for instigating the Delhi violence
Videos of hate speech by Kapil Mishra played before Delhi HC
Delhi Violence case: Court discharges 3 accused citing shoddy investigation 

The post Delhi violence calculated attempt to disrupt normal life: HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tasleem, a Muslim bangle seller, who was mercilessly beaten up publicly for his religious identity in Indore recently, has now been denied bail in connection with a case of alleged molestation. 

He was arrested on the complaint of the Class VI student who stated that the man introduced himself as Golu son of Mohar Singh (instead of Tasleem Ali) and molested her while her mother had gone inside the house to get money to pay for the bangles purchased.

A case was registered against him under sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 467 (Forgery of a valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged), 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC as well as under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the charges against Tasleem were false and that he was beaten up by the complainant’s father and others from the crowd. He also stated that when Tasleem went to lodge his complaint at first instance, no FIR was lodged and thereafter this case of molestation was lodged against him as an afterthought.

The court denied him bail keeping in mind the grave allegations against the applicant and that investigation is still going on. Moreover, the applicant resides outside of Indore.

Background

The video clip of Tasleem being beaten up by a mob was widely circulated on social media. In the video, it can be seen that someone is tugging at the victim’s shirt and other men are emptying his bag full of bangles he meant to sell to find out what he is carrying in his bag. After discovering that the bags only contained multiple packs of bangles, the man calls out to women in the market and asks them to come and pick up as many bangles as they want. 

He also warned the victim not come back to the area, or be seen in any Hindu locality hence forth. 

Throughout the video, other men continue to hit him and assault him. The youth is constantly joining his hands and begging them to let him go as the mob continues to threaten him and his religious identity. The men then started encouraging more and more people from the crowd gathered to hit the youth and people even come up and beat him black and blue, kicking him, slapping him. The men are then seen pulling his pants looking for money and his ID card. One of the men can even be heard saying that don’t hit in a manner that would leave a mark or visible injury.

Tasleem’s complaint was finally lodged after a crowd gathered outside the police station that a case be registered.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Hate Watch: Muslim bangle seller thrashed, wares looted in Indore
Serial hate crimes against Muslims spiral, first MP, now Rajasthan
Allahabad HC questions if state funds to madrasas is consistent with India’s secular scheme

The post Indore: Muslim bangle seller beaten by mob, denied bail in molestation case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to a man accused of cow slaughter in a detailed order propagating cow protection and pushing for making cow protection a fundamental right for Hindus. The single-judge bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav denied bail to one Javed, who was accused under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the charges against him were false and that he was not at the place of incident and was falsely implicated by the police. He also stated that no cow either dead or alive was recovered from him, hence, he should be granted bail. Meanwhile, the state counsel opposed the bail stating that the applicant, along with other accused were found with some dead cows slaughtered and they ran away from the scene on being discovered.

The court, in its initial observations stressed upon the cultural importance of cows and how cow as an animal is sacred in Indian culture. The court also spoke of the beneficial properties of cow urine and how cow provides us with milk. The court then said that Punjab Kesari Maharaja Ranjit Singh had in his reign made cow slaughter an offence punishable with death. The court also claimed that scientists believe that cows are the only animals that exhale oxygen! Interestingly, the same claim was made by former Uttarakhand Chief Minister Trivendra Singh Rawat a couple of years ago, but was summarily trounced by scientists saying that no animal can exhale oxygen.

The court further quoted Vedas and Hindu deities and their mythological stories around cows. Basically, most of the court’s observations in this bail matter are about Indian culture, reverence of cows, importance of cows to Hindus, mythology, historical references and unscientific claims.

The court then stated that keeping these references in mind, the cow should be declared a national animal and cow protection be declared a fundamental right for Hindus because it is known that when India’s culture and belief systems is in danger, the country becomes weak. The court then said that eating cow meat cannot be a fundamental right.

The court further said that strict laws should be made to punish those who talk about harming cows. “Jab gaaye ka kalyaan hoga, tabhi desh ka kalyaan hoga (only if cow is revered, country will prosper),” the order said. The court pointed out that the Supreme Court has also given judgements keeping in mind protection of cow and at least 24 states have laws aimed at protecting cows.

The court also observed that gaushalas do not sometimes take proper care of cows and leave diseased cows in the roads to die. “There are hundreds of examples in our country that whenever we forgot our sanskriti, the foreigners attacked us and made us slaves and even today if we do not wake up, then we should not forget the autocratic Taliban invasion and occupation of Afghanistan,” the court said.

While denying bail to the applicant, the court said, “In such a situation, when everyone takes a step forward to unite India and support its faith, then some people whose faith and belief are not at all in the interest of the country, they only weaken the country by talking like this in the country. In view of the above circumstances, prima facie offense is proved to be committed against the applicant.”

The court while justifying the refusal of bail stated that this is not he applicant’s first offence of cow slaughter which has disturbed harmony in society, and if he is released he will repeat the same offence and will disturb the harmony in society. The court found the bail application to be baseless and rejected the same.

The complete order may be read here:

A problematic order

A complete reading of the order will indicate that the order is merely a preaching about importance of Indian culture, importance of cows to Hindu religion and how in a diverse country like India, all religions respect each other’s beliefs and culture. Much less has been explored by the court about the case, the material brought on record by the prosecution and the facts and circumstances. Even the arguments of the counsels have been briefly mentioned. The facts have been mentioned in detail but the order does not deliberate upon them, thus leaving little room for justification of refusal of bail. In the concluding last paragraph, the court does mention that this is not the applicant’s first offence, and that is the reasoning of the final decision of the court.

Apart from this, the issues that emerge from this order is that it glorifies cow protection and elevates it to the stance of a fundamental right of ‘Hindus’. Needless to say, as the Hon’ble judge himself must be aware of the many incidents that have taken place across the country since cow vigilantism has erupted and gained traction leading to loss of many poor Muslims, who, in many cases were not even dealing in cow meat. Even if they were acting against the law by committing any offences under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the law deals with the offender in a lawful manner and not a mob.

The order outright seems to declare cow protection as some birth right of Hindus they are meant to pursue, and making cow protection a part of Indian culture. The court needs to be reminded of the many cases where over zealous “cow protectors” who already have presumed cow protection to be their fundamental right, have lynched and attacked people hailing from economically weak, marginalised and minority communities, and that there is no specific law to deal with such lynching.

The court also called for laws to promote cow protection, when majority of the states already have laws for cow protection and against cow slaughter, while there is a clear void in criminal law for the offence of mob attacks and lynchings which have been on the rise.

Cow vigilantism

Cow vigilante violence has become an issue on its own and a Human Rights Watch report states that Between May 2015 and December 2018, at least 44 people—36 of them Muslims—were killed across 12 Indian states. Over that same period, around 280 people were injured in over 100 different incidents across 20 states.

In August 2015, Anas Qureshi, 17, Arif Qureshi, 26, and Nazim, 15, were beaten to death in Kaimrala village of Dadri town, UP after they were found transporting two buffaloes.

In September 2015, a mob killed Mohammad Akhlaq, 50, in Uttar Pradesh state, and critically injured his 22-year-old son, over allegations that the family had slaughtered a calf for beef.

In October 2015, Noman was beaten to death at Sarahan in Himachal Pradesh over suspicions that he was smuggling cows. Case was registered against the perpetrators 2 months later.

In April 2017, Pehlu Khan a dairy farmer, and his two sons  were attacked by a mob in Alwar, Rajasthan accusing them of smuggling cows. Pehlu Khan succumbed to his injuries two days later.

In November 2017, Umar Khan was allegedly shot by cow vigilantes while he was transporting cattle to his home in Bharatpur district with fellow villagers Tahir and Javed. The police instead of looking for the perpetrators lodged a case against the three for being cow smugglers. Finally in January 2018, the police arrested 8 people and charged them for robbing Umar Khan, killing him and throwing his body on railway tracks.

Mohammad Qasim, 45, was beaten to death on June 18, 2018, by a mob that accused him of attempting cow slaughter near Pilkhuwa village in Hapur district.

In July 2018, Akbar Khan, 28, was killed by a mob in Alwar, Rajasthan and succumbed to his injuries as the police delayed taking him to the hospital and allegedly took him to the police station first and beat him up, in his precarious condition.

These are only handful of such incidents where cow vigilantism has wreaked havoc and created a fear psychosis amongst the Muslim community, especially the poor and marginalised.

The Supreme Court, in Tehseen Poonawalla v. UOI (2018) 9 SCC 501, while ruling on issues like mob attacks, including cow vigilantism, said, “Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results in a reign of terror. Extra judicial elements and non-State actors cannot be allowed to take the place of law or the law enforcing agency.”

Related:

Why is the Govt of India silent on the spurt of attacks on Muslims, Adivasis?
Serial hate crimes against Muslims spiral, first MP, now Rajasthan
Hate Watch: Muslim bangle seller thrashed, wares looted in Indore
West Bengal cops allegedly thrash Muslim contable, family

The post SHOCKING! Allahabad HC asks that Cow Protection be declared a Fundamental Right for Hindus! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr. Anand Teltumbde, who is booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the Bhima Koregaon case, will continue to remain in Taloja jail after the Special NIA court rejected his bail plea on July 12. He was arrested on April 14, last year. On July 15, the jailed Dalit scholar turned 70.

Judge D.E. Kothalikar said, “The courts considering the bail application are required to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-à-vis personal liberty of the accused, by adhering to the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence”.

The same Special NIA judge had rejected Father Stan’s bail on medical grounds in March this year. Ignoring his deteriorating health conditions and advanced Parkinson’s Disease, Judge Kothalikar had held that, “The collective interest of the community outweighs his personal liberty and also the alleged sickness he suffers”.

Elgar Parishad violence

The NIA court in Mumbai held that even though Anand Teltumbde was invited for a wedding on December 31, 2017, one day before the Elgar parishad event at Bhima Koregaon, “Considering the fact that the name of the applicant appeared in the invitation card and that the applicant had gone to Shaniwar Wada, the place at which the event of Elgar Parishad was organised, goes to prima facie suggest that the applicant was also connected with the Elgar Parishad.”

Further, the court also said, “Upon perusal of the documents, including the exchange of emails and the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, and after cross-checking the truthfulness of the allegations made against the applicant, this court does not find that the accusations are inherently improbable or wholly unbelievable.”

Educational qualifications

Dr. Teltumbde relied heavily on his academic qualifications while arguing for bail. He holds the qualification of B.E. in Mechanical Engineering from VNIT, Nagpur, MBA from IIM Ahmedabad, and D. Litt from Karnataka State University, Mysore. He was also the Executive Director of Bharat Petroleum, and Managing Director and CEO of Petronet India Limited up to 2010. He has also been invited as a Professor of Management by IIT, Kharagpur.

The order recorded that, “He has written extensively in all leading newspapers, magazines, organizational pamphlets and booklets and lectured widely in India. He has authored several books. He was associated with the People’s struggle, particularly labour class. He has contributed to the respected social science journal, Economic and Political Weekly and written columns. Presently, he is a senior professor, Big Data Analytics, Goa Institute of Management.”

But the court refused arguments of him being widely respected in his field. Since the court ruled that there was prime facie evidence against him, the order read, “the contention of the applicant that his educational qualification and social background, needs to be considered while deciding bail application, is liable to be discarded.”

Material against Dr. Teltumbde

The National Investigation Agency alleged that the material from Dr. Anand’s laptop, computers, pen drives, memory cards were “shocking” and implicates him to an extent that establishes that he was not only an active member of the banned organisation CPI (Maoist), but clearly reflected the ongoing sinister design of committing an offence that would destabilise the society.

The NIA submitted that the investigation revealed a “deep rooted conspiracy” to create disharmony to strike terror in people’s minds with the intent to threaten the unity and integrity of India. Hence, sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 18B (punishment for recruiting a person for a terrorist act), 20 (punishment for being a member of a banned organisation), 38 (offence related to being a member of a banned organisation), 39 (offence related to giving support to a terrorist organisation) and 40 (offence of raising fund for a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA were added against him.

The documents on record included a letter allegedly written by one ‘Prakash’ to ‘Anand’, that was recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson’s laptop. The letter mentions “Anand’s visit to Paris for Human Rights Convention to be held on April 9 and 10, 2018 and lectures on Dalit issues in order to give traction to domestic chaos.” The prosecution claimed that the letter mentioned to “keep the fire ablaze”.

Judge Kothalikar noted that the prosecution had claimed that during the said period of domestic chaos related to the Dalit issue, was only the incident relating to the Bhima Koregaon incident. “The very statement made in the letter that all PM’s and intellectual comrades must strive to keep the fire ablaze, goes to prima facie indicate that the applicant was involved in furthering activities of the banned organisation”, alleged the prosecution.

The court relied heavily on the documents/letters recovered from Rona Wilson’s laptop to accept the prosecution’s argument that prima facie Teltumbde was an active member of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation. It is noteworthy that an American Consultancy firm had released a report stating that the alleged incriminating material found on Rona Wilson and most recently co-accused Surendra Gadling’s laptop, was planted. It has unearthed evidence that 14 key files mentioned in the chargesheet against activist and lawyer Surendra Gadling were planted on his hard drive using Netwire, the very same malware that was used to plant false evidence on a laptop belonging to Rona Wilson. Wilson has approached the Bombay High Court seeking formation of an SIT to investigate the planting of these documents on his laptop.

The court also ruled that Anand was not only prima facie involved in activities of a banned organisation but also assisted his own brother Milind Teltumbde, who is a wanted Maoist leader and the Secretary of the Maharashtra State Committee of CPI (Maoist).

Allegations in the chargesheet

Furthermore, the Special NIA court also noted the chargesheet filed against Teltumbde and 13 other accused in the case. The chargesheet states that they conspired to mobilise masses to spread disaffection against the government through provocative speeches, plays, songs, and that they had incited feelings of hatred among communities that led to the violence in Bhima Koregaon on January 1, 2018.

The court further perused the chargesheet and recorded in its order that the Bhima Koregaon incident was just a part of the larger conspiracy and that the NIA’s investigation has revealed that “funds were provided by the banned organization through their members and that the students from eminent educational institutes were taken to forest area occupied by Maoist guerrilla and were given training for terrorist activities.”

The court thus held, “I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned advocate of the applicant (Anand Teltumbde) that the material placed on record does not prima facie make out a case for the offences punishable under UAPA.”

The restriction on bail provisions under Section 43 D (5) of the UAPA makes it impossible for any person seeking regular bail to do so before or even after the chargesheet is filed. This section existed before as Section 20 (8) under TADA and then Section 49(7) in POTA.

Under the UAPA, despite provisions for bail that exist in Indian criminal law, an exception is made under Section 43 D (5): bail is an impossibility unless “the public prosecutor is heard” and if “the court, after perusal of the case diary, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against person is prima facie true”. This section, which turns Indian criminal law on its head, received the untenable judicial stamp of approval in April 2019 in National Investigation Agency vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which has adversely impacted the accepted doctrine on bail, holding essentially that the accused must remain in custody throughout the period of the trial because the courts must assume every allegation made in the first information report (FIR) to be correct.

The same Watali judgment was relied upon by Judge Kothalikar, who looked at the available documents against Dr. Teltumbde and took its contents into account “as it is” without opining on the admissibility of the materials at the stage of granting bail. Out of the 16 accused and jailed in this case, Father Stan Swamy died awaiting bail on July 5 and Dr. Varavara Rao is currently out on medical bail.

The judgment may be read here:

Related:

Another bullet from Arsenal pierces through NIA’s Bhima Koregaon case!
The institutional murder of Father Stan Swamy
Bhima Koregaon: Anand Teltumbde files bail plea before Special court

The post Why was Dr. Anand Teltumbde denied bail by the NIA court? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Gurugram court in Pataudi has rejected the bail application of Rambhagat Gopal for allegedly making communal speeches at a Mahapanchayat in Pataudi. Rambhagat Gopal is also infamous as the Jamia shooter, who held up a gun and shot at protesters near Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia University in January last year, injuring one.

Rambhagat was booked for under sections 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily participating in an event and giving “hate speeches targeting a particular religious community and used inflammatory language to instigate the mob to abduct girls of particular religious community and to kill persons of that community.”

Judicial Magistrate Mohammad Sageer perused the FIR and the video recording available, and noted that it was clear that a gathering was present where he gave hate speeches and used inflammatory language, and raised slogans in the name of religion to kill persons of particular religious community.

The order read, “The act of the accused i.e., hate speech qua instigating abduction and killing of girls and persons of a particular religious community is itself a form of violence and such people and their inflammatory speeches are an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit. It leads to destruction of our society as people will fight based on religion. Religious tolerance is the need of the time and not Intolerance. It is necessary for individuals within the society to get along, especially when a variety of cultures and the people with different religious beliefs live in one community or nation.”

In his strongly worded order, Judge Sageer explained how the situation is getting out of hand with the Police failing to get matters into control. He said, “Hate speech based on religion or caste has become fashion nowadays and police also seem to be helpless in dealing with such incidents. Such kind of people who are trying to create disharmony and impart hatred amongst the common people are actually harming this country more than the pandemic.”

He also observed that Hate Speech lays down the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable that can range from “discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.” Hate speech also impacts a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy, he said.

Further ruling that the alleged offenses committed by Rambhagat are “very serious and severe in nature”, and that the consequences of these kinds of activities may be far more dangerous and it may translate into communal violence, the court rejected his bail plea.

“This Court does not find any reasons to enlarge the accused person on bail as there is every possibility that a law-and-order situation may arise and that the accused person may again indulge in such unconstitutional and illegal activities and actually disturb the communal harmony and peace of the society. If he is allowed to be out of jail then there is a strong possibility that he can affect the investigation and threaten the complainant and other witnesses and it may cause prejudice to the free, fair and full investigation. At this juncture, rights of the accused of his personal liberty cannot be preferred against the right of the society in peaceful communal harmony and balance lies in favour of the later”, read the order.

On January 30, 2020, when Rambhagat was only 17 years old, he had opened fired on a group of protesters near Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMIU), who were protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and demanding on Martyrs Day, a return to Gandhian values of peace, inclusion and tolerance. Shockingly, the events unfolded in front of the police and security personnel deployed on the spot as well as in full view of media persons who had gathered to cover the students’ march to Rajghat, Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi. The Jamia shooter reportedly said, “Kisko chahiye azadi, yeh lo azaadi,” (Who wants freedom? Here’s your freedom!) before he fired his gun. A man identified as Shadaab was injured in the firing and a video of the incident went viral on social media.

In the present case, where he has been booked for Hate Speech, he stood up and told the crowd of like-minded people to “abduct Muslim women”, and boasted that if he could go over a 100 kilometres away and “into Jamia in support of CAA”, “Pataudi is not very far”. His warning was for those he called “jihadis”. He said, “Pataudi se kewal itni chetavani dena chaahta hoon, un… jihadiyon, aatankwadi mansikta ke logon ko, jab sau kilometre door Jamia ja sakta hoon CAA ke samarthan mein, toh Pataudi zyada door nahin hai.” (From Pataudi I want to warn Jihadis, those with a terrorist mindset, when I can go 100 kilometres away into Jamia in support of CAA, then Pataudi is not very far). He reportedly also chanted “Jai Sri Ram” and the crowd at the Mahapanchayat in Pataudi echoed his mood. 

The entire order may be read here: 

Related:

Mahapanchayats and hate panchayats are not the same
Gunman fires at protesters near Jamia, injures one

The post Gurugram Court denies bail to ‘Jamia Shooter’ in a Hate Speech case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a murder accused in the Delhi violence case, who was allegedly involved in 8 other cases related to the February 2020 violence. The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that the allegations levelled were grave, and the petitioner’s involvement in the riots was alleged by witnesses and if released on bail, he could threaten them.

The petitioner, Pankaj Sharma, has been in judicial custody since March 2020 and challenged the trial court order that rejected his bail, on the ground that the trial court ignored material facts and evidence on record. The case was of murder of one Hashim Ali who was found in Pulia area, and upon his post mortem it was revealed that death was caused due to blunt force impact on head and abdomen.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet filed before the trial court does not reflect ‘grave suspicion’ qua involvement of petitioner in the offence in question, and he has been arrested on an unfounded presumption that he was a part of unlawful assembly. The counsel further submitted that the eye witness statement cannot be relied upon as they were planted.

The prosecution submitted that during investigation, the police found that there was a group on Whatsapp called “Kattar Hindu Ekta” which was created on February 25, 2020 which contained various incriminating messages from the members of the group, especially one Lokesh Solanki who revealed names of other members of the group who were actively involved in the riots, which included the petitioner. He further disclosed that he along with his other associates, including the petitioner, had killed nine persons of other community, including Hashim Ali and his elder brother Aamir Khan, and threw their bodies in the gutter and burnt their vehicles as well.

The prosecution argued that the petitioner is amongst the conspirators who designed the killing of persons belonging to other community, and as per his call records, he was found at the crime spot at the time of the incident. He further stated that the petitioner’s role in the whatsapp group “Kattar Hindu Ekta” is still under scrutiny and if released on bail, he could threaten the witnesses.

The court, with respect to the contention that the witnesses are planted, refused to delve into it, and stated that credibility of witnesses is a matter of trial. The court observed that even if there is no CCTV footage against the petitioner, his call records show his presence at the crime scene and his being part of the “Kattar Hindu Ekta” group as well as statements of witnesses. The court thus refused to take a lenient view of the petitioner as the allegations levelled against him were grave.

“In the alleged incident a young boy of 19 years has lost his life. As per post mortem report, 42 grievous injuries were found on the person of the deceased which proved fatal for him. The case is pending at the stage of framing of charge. Besides present case, petitioner is implicated in eight other FIR cases and the apprehension expressed by prosecution that if released on bail, petitioner may threaten or influence the witnesses, is not misplaced,” the court observed.

Based on these observations, the court refused to grant bail to the petitioner, and dismissed the petition while making it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence the trial.

The order may be read here:

Related:

A George Floyd moment in India, I can’t breathe: Delhi HC on oxygen shortage
Muslim Covid warriors save lives with oxygen ‘langars’, ambulance services
Peasantry to assemble on May 26, SKM calls for ‘Black Day’ across India!

The post Delhi violence: HC denies bail to murder accused part of ‘Kattar Hindu Ekta’ Whatsapp group appeared first on SabrangIndia.