A bench consisting of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta granted Kappan’s application to modify this bail condition. As per LiveLaw, the bench stated, “The order dated September 9, 2022, is modified, and it shall no longer be necessary for the petitioner to report to the local police station. The other requests made in the present application can be addressed separately.”

The official copy of the order has not yet been uploaded to the court’s website. This bail condition was initially imposed by the Supreme Court when it granted Kappan bail after nearly two years of detention in September 2022.

Details of the Supreme Court order granting Kappan bail:

On September 9, 2022, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan, who has been under the custody of the Uttar Pradesh Police since October 6, 2020. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Kappan was arrested while he was on his way to Hathras in Uttar Pradesh where a Dalit woman had died after allegedly being gang-raped. The police had claimed that the accused was trying to disturb the law and order in Hathras, and also alleged that the accused had links with the Popular Front of India (PFI).

Kappan was kept under custody for alleged offences under Sections 17/18 of UAPA, Sections 120B 153A/295A IPC, 65/72 IT Act for alleged conspiracy to incite riots following the gangrape-murder of a Dalit minor girl in Hathras. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had in August, 2022 rejected the bail application of Kappan,

On September 9, a bench comprising of Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat granted him bail, directing Kappan to remain in Delhi for the next six weeks after the release from an Uttar Pradesh prison and also mark his presence with local police station every week. There were other conditions too.

“The appeal challenges Allahabad High Court order. The appellant was taken in custody on 6 October 2020 and since then has been in custody in connection with Section 17/18 UAPA, 124A, 153A 295A IPC, 65/72 IT Act. It appears that chargesheet has already been filed on April 2, 2021, however the matter has not been taken on consideration on whether charges need to be framed or not. The application for bail having been rejected by High Court, the instant appeal has been preferred. We have heard Kapil Sibal for appellant and Mahesh Jethmalani for the State. We have been taken through some documents on record. At this stage, we refrain from dealing with and commenting on the progress of investigation and the materials collected by prosecution as the matter is at framing of charge.”

The Supreme Court had granted him bail stating that “The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court within three days from today; and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure presence and participation of the appellant in the matter pending before it.”

The order further said, “Upon release, the appellant shall stay in the 3 city of Delhi and within the jurisdiction of Nizamuddin police Station and shall not leave the city of Delhi without express permission of the trial court; that the appellant shall record his presence in the concerned police station every Monday in a register maintained for the purpose; that this condition shall be applicable for first six weeks from the date of release.” It added, “After six weeks, the appellant shall be at liberty to go back to his native place and stay at Mallapuram in Kerala but shall report at the local police station in similar fashion that is to say on every Monday and mark his presence in the register maintained in that behalf.”

Thus, the Supreme Court had levied the following conditions on the bail granted to Kappan considering the length of custody undergone by the appellant and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case:

1. The appellant shall be taken to the trial court within 3 days and shall be released on bail on conditions as deemed fit by the trial court.
2. It shall be the condition of bail that the appellant shall stay within the jurisdiction of Jangpura in Delhi.
3. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Delhi without the express permission of trial court.
4. The appellant shall record his presence in local police station every Monday. This condition shall apply for first 6 weeks. After 6 weeks, the appellant shall be at liberty to go to Kerala but shall report to the local police station in similar fashion, that is every Monday, and mark his presence in the register kept on that behalf.
5. The appellant shall either in person or through lawyer shall attend the trial court on every single day.
6. The appellant shall deposit his passport with the investigative machinery. The appellant shall not misuse the liberty and shall not get in touch with any of the person connected with the controversy. 

With the order issued by the Supreme Court on November 4, condition 4 has been relaxed.

Background

Kerala based journalist Siddique Kappan has been lodged in Mathura Jail for over 300 days. The Uttar Pradesh Police have filed a 5,000-page chargesheet against him and 3 others who were arrested along with him, and have accused them of receiving Rs. 80 lakhs from financial institutions in Doha and Muscat to create unrest in the state.

Kappan, who is also the secretary of Kerala Union of Working Journalists Delhi unit (KUWJ), and a senior reporter had gone to cover the Hathras horror of the alleged gangrape, and murder of the 19-year-old Dalit woman that had made headlines all around the world. Soon after his arrest, the KUWJ issued a statement expressing that they could not get in touch with Siddique and that neither the Hathras Police Station nor the State Police department could provide any information on taking him into custody. 

The Uttar Pradesh government had submitted in its affidavit that they found “suspicious literature, one that could have an adverse impact on peace,” from their electronic devices. Police have also claimed that the four including Kappan were linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its student body Campus Front of India and that they were going to Hathras “under the garb of journalism with a very determined design to create a caste divide and disturb law and order situation.”

Over the two years of incarceration, he had reportedly been tortured and harassed by jail authorities, denied legal assistance and medicines (he is diabetic), taken a fall in the jail bathroom, contracted Covid-19, has been chained to a hospital bed preventing him from moving or even using the washroom, forced to urinate in a bottle, and has also lost his mother. Kappan had been granted bail twice by the Supreme Court for visiting his ailing mother and for being treated for COVID-19. On both times, there had not been any allegations that he tried to jump bail or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

As per a BBC News report, Kappan was “dragged and beaten with sticks on thighs, slapped on face, forced to stay awake from 6pm to 6am on the pretext of questioning and subjected to serious mental torture”. According to his wife Raihanath Kappan, the police repeatedly asked Siddique if he ate beef (many Hindus revere cows, and in recent years Muslims have been lynched for eating beef or transporting cattle), and also asked him why Muslims have an affinity to Dalits.

Related:

Journalist Siddique Kappan’s release after 28 months in a UP jail, where a black hole with opaque procedures affected release

Siddique Kappan to finally walk out of Jail!

Siddique Kappan directed to furnish 2 sureties of Rs 1 lakh each for Bail Proceedings under PMLA

Ex-LU VC, Roop Rekha Verma stands as bail surety for journalist, Siddique Kappan

SC grants journalist Siddique Kappan bail in Hathras conspiracy case

The post Supreme Court eases bail conditions for Kerala Journalist Siddique Kappan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It should be noted that the Uttar Pradesh police’s Special Task Force has filed charges against nine people connected to the Popular Front of India (PFI) for allegedly committing offences such as sedition, criminal conspiracy, funding of terrorism, and other offences. Among the ones that were charge sheeted were the leader of the group’s student wing, K.A. Rauf Sherif, and Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan. Furthermore, they were also accused of engaging in money laundering activities, claiming that the motivation of those involved was to “incite communal riots and spread terror” in the wake of the Hathras gang rape case.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 153 (A) (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, and place of birth, residence, and language), 124(A) (sedition), 295 (A) (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings…) and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) had been used against the said nine accused. Additionally, they are accused of violating several sections of the IT Act as well as Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA, which relate to raising funds for terror acts.

Earlier, in December 2022, the Special Judge, NIA/ATS, Additional District and Sessions had denied bail to Sherif and Tunnu. Challenging the order, they moved to the HC.

Arguments made by the appellants:

The two appellants were represented by Advocates Amarjeet Singh Rakhra and Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi. It was argued by the counsels that the current two appellants were not listed in the original FIR, which had initially been lodged in the case against four other accused parties. Furthermore, it was asserted that there was no evidence to support any claims made that they two accused were affiliated with any terrorist groups, were looking for donations or financial support, or had any connections with the PFI or the CFI.

It was further argued that, in light of the provisions of Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA, the court handling the accused’s bail application had a responsibility to determine and satisfy itself regarding whether there were good reasons and reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is prima facie guilty of the charges against them.

Their main argument was that the Special Court wholly failed to satisfy itself as to whether Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA applied, and refused the bail requests solely because a charge sheet had been filed against him, and the co-accused’s bail request had also been denied. The bench was also informed that the High Court had earlier granted bail to co-accused Kappan and Mohammad Alam.

Arguments made by the state:

On the other hand, the counsel representing the State contended that the appellants are connected to the PFI organisation, which engages in terrorist actions in the nation and tries to sow discord there by promoting caste and religious prejudice. Furthermore, it was argued that the Special Court had good cause to deny the bail application because there is a substantial amount of evidence against the appellants.

Order of the court:

After having heard the contentions put forth by both the counsels for parties and upon perusal of the records, the bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I noted that initially, the FIR came to be lodged against four accused persons which did not include the names of the appellants and no incriminating article was recovered from their possession or their pointing out.

“The investigating agency has already filed a charge sheet against the appellant and the trial is yet to commence. The named co-accused, namely, Sidhique Kappan, who has been assigned the lead role, has been granted bail by the Apex Court…The other co-accused, namely, Alam @ Mohammad Alam, who was named in the F.I.R. and Atikur Rahman have been granted bail by a Division Bench of this Court,” the Court observed in its order. (Para 16)

The Court also noted that the two appellants have been languishing in jail since a significant amount of time, with Rauf having been incarcerated since February 2021 and Tunnu since November 2022.

Consequently, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court opined that the court below had failed to appreciate the material available on record. With this, the Court granted the two appellants bail.

The order can be read here:

Related:

Jamia student leader, Masud Ahmed, gets bail in ED case, to remain in jail in Hathras UAPA case

Hathras gangrape: Only Sandeep Sisodiya convicted for culpable homicide, and not for rape

SC grants journalist Siddique Kappan bail in Hathras conspiracy case

He had no work in Hathras: Allahabad High Court denies bail to journalist Siddique Kappan

A year on, Hathras victim’s family awaits a house, pension and employment

Hathras case: CJP moves MEITY against news channel for spreading hate and misinformation

The post Hathras conspiracy case: two more accused granted bail by the Allahabad High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.