SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  6
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
FIR no. 152/2021
PS Connaught Place
State Vs. Ashwani Upadhyay
U/s 188/268/270/153 A IPC,
S. 3 Epidemic Diseases Act &
S. 51 (b) DM Act
In view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order No.
439-470/RG/DHC-2021 dated 22.07.2021, matters are being taken up through video
conferencing using Cisco Webex. It is certified that there was no interruption during the
proceeding and all the parties were heard.
Present: Sh. Sikhar Mahajan, Ld. APP for the state.
Sh. Vikas Singh, Sh. Sidharth Luthra, Sh. Pradeep Rai, Sh. Gopal Shankar
Narayan, Ld. Senior Advocates for the applicant/accused.
Sh. Ashwani Dubey, Sh. Ardhendu Mauli Kumar Prasad, Sh. Nirmal
Amabastha, Sh. Manish Kumar, Sh. Rudra Vikram Singh, Sh. Alakh Alok Srivastav, Sh.
Jalaj Aggarwal, Sh. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Sh. Himashu Pathak and Sh. Chandan Kumar
Singh, Ms. Shubhangi Jain, Sh. Pankaj Singhal, Ld. Counsels for the applicant/accused.
This is an application for grant of bail to the applicant/accused under Section
437 CrPC (inadvertenetly mentioned as Section 439 CrPC).
Reply has been filed by the IO wherein the IO has vehemnetly opposed the
bail application on the ground that release of applicant/accused will be prejudicial in
maintaing public tranquility and will create further serious law and order situation. There
are chances that the applicant/accused will create communal disharmony.
At the very outset, all the offences alleged against the accused, except for
offence u/s 153A IPC, are bailable in nature hence, the hearing in the present application is
confined to non-bailable offence alleged against the accused.
Sh. Vikas Singh, Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of applicant/accused submits
that this is blatant abuse of power by the Police. Police cannot apprehend anyone
indiscriminately. It is submitted that it is an admitted fact that the applicant/accused was
present on the spot in the morning and not at the time of alleged incident relating to hate
speech committed u/s 153A IPC. The applicant/accused has left the spot at or around 11.00
am and reached his home around 12:15 pm in Ghaziabad . Ld. Senior Advocate submits that
he has seen the video personally and on perusal of the said video it can be seen that the hate
speech was made after it rained however, the applicant/accused has left the spot even before
the rain started. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that all the offences except for the offence u/s
153 A IPC are bailable. For the purpose of Section 153A IPC, it is imperative that the hate
speech should have been made at the instance of a person or the person should have actively
participated in making such remarks which promotes enmity between different groups. It is
submitted by Ld. Senior Advocate that had the accused been present on the spot at the time
of commission of the alleged offence, the accused should have been arrested then and there.
Even otherwise, the FIR should have been registered soon after the alleged offence was
committed. However perusal of the FIR clearly shows that the FIR was registered belatedly.
Ld. Senior Advocate further submits that the mandate of Section 41A CrPC is
violated as neither any notice was served upon the applicant/accused nor any justification
for arrest of the applicant/accused is provided as clearly, all the offences alleged are having
imprisonment of less than 7 years. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that applicant/accused is
being illegally incarcerated and therefore bail should be granted to the applicant/accused
forthwith.
Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Sidharth Luthra supporting the contention of Ld.
Senior Advocate Sh. Vikas Singh, submits that it is a clear case of non-compliance of the
Arnesh Kumar judgment which is applicable in the present case. Ld. Senior Advocate has
placed reliance upon the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Munnavar vs
State of MP vide order dated 06.02.2021 wherein the petitioner was released on bail,
although interim, due to non-compliance of Arnesh Kumar judgement. Ld. Senior Advocate
further submits that the case of the applicant/accused is distinct from the other accused
person. Ld. Senior Advocate further submits that applicant/accused may be a part of the
meeting at particular point of time but that does not imply that he shall be blamed for each
and every thing that may have happen in his absence. Hence, the applicant/acccused be
released.
Countering the sbmissions made on behalf of applicant/accused, Ld. APP for
the state has pointed out two main points of concern as far as the applicant is concerned.
Firstly, Ld. APP for the state points out towards the gravity of offence in the terms of
senstivity of the issue. In this regard, Ld. APP for the state submits that this is the time of a
Pandemic wherein large gatherings are not being allowed to prevent spread of Covid-19
Pandemic, the gathering was held without any permission, gathering was held near
Parliament during the ongoing Moonsoon Session. It was indeed a senstitive time and place
when there was no need to gather, hence the applicant/accused has clearly violated against
the guidlines issued to curb the Covid-19 Pandemic and Section 144 CrPC which was
applicable at that place during that time. Pointing towards the second point of concern, Ld.
APP for the state submits that it is a celar case of involvement of applicant/accused as the
event was organized at the behest of the applicant/accused. Ld. APP for the state further
submits that the gathering was an unlawful assembly in which the applicant/accused
actively participated knowing the common object of that unlawful assembly.
Rebutting the submissions made by Ld. Senior Advocate of the
applicant/accused, Ld. APP for the state submits that there is no delay in registration of FIR
as it was only after scrutinising the material available, applicant/accused was arrested. Ld.
APP for the state further submits that the IO concerned has acted with due diligence in
exercise of power conferred to him u/s 41 Cr.PC. Ld. APP for the state further submits that
if the applicant/accused was not involved in the commision of offences, he should have
acted in a bonafide manner to inform the concerned police officials regarding commision of
such offences. To crack nexus and find out all the persons involved in alleged offence, Ld.
APP for the state submits that custody of applicant/accused is required for proper
investigation of the case.
In rebuttal, Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Vikas Singh submits that the applicant
accused is not denying that he was not present at the gathering however, the
applicant/accused was neither present on the spot at the time of commision of alleged hate
speech. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that applicant/accused has credible standing and he is
a reputed member of the Bar. He is not going to abscond. The arrest of the applicant/accused
is againt the rule of law. No involvement of the accused can be seen from the FIR or from
the reply of the IO. Even in the viral videos applicant/accused cannot be seen.
Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Sidharth Luthra countering the submissions of Ld. APP for
the state, placing reliance upon the para 12 of the Arnesh Kumar judgment and submits that
the non bailable offence u/s 153A IPC has maximum imprisonment of three years and
clearly action of the police officials in apprehending the applicant/accused is against the rule
of law. It is no doubt that the IO has decretion to arrest the applicant/accused u/s 41 CrPC
however, such powers had to be exercised caustiously and in light of the law of the land
including the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High
Courts. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that reliance of Section of 149 IPC by Ld. APP is
misplaced as it is only relevant when a person participate in an unlawful assembly knowing
the common object of such assembly. It is no where on record that the applicant/accused
was present on the spot at the time of commision of offence u/s 153 A IPC. Ld. Senior
Advocate, countering the submission of Ld. APP for the state with regard to failure of the
applicant/accused in acting in a bonafide manner, refers to Section 39 CrPC wherein the
duty to inform about the commision of offence no where enumerates the offences alleged
against the applicant/accused. It is not even the case of a man at the wrong place.
Sh. Ardhendu Mauli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has placed reliance
upon guidlines passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition
(civil) No. 1 of 2020 IN RE : Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons to prevent the over
crowding of prisons during this pandemic time.
Ld. Senior Advoate Sh. Gopal Shankarnarayan submits that the viral videos
are now in public domain and no where it can be seen that applicant/accused was present
when the present offence u/s 153A IPC was committed by the applicant/accused. It is further
submitted that there is no credible information available with the investigating agency to
apprehend. Name of the applicant/accused is being misused by some miscreants due to
which the agency had apprehend the applicant/accused. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that no
reason has been provided by the investing agency why custody of applicant/accused is
required when everything allegedly incriminating is available in public domain no where
pointing towards the applicant/accused. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that mere presence of
the applicant/accused at one point of time during the gathering cannot be attributed to the
whole chain of events happened in active absence of the applicant/accused.
Sh. Ashwani Dubey, Ld. Counsel assisting Ld. Senior Advocates and for the
applicant/accused submits that the applicated has acted in bonafide manner and has duly
offered the investigating agency for his assistance in the investigation. In this regard, the
applicant/accused has also sent e-mails to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Ld. Counsel
submits that the applicant/accused has deep roots in the society.
Heard both sides at length. Perused the record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT Delhi AIR
2001 SC 1444 held that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used
the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the
court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in
support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Indeed it is difficult time for everyone during this pandemic and serious view
should be taken against those who violates the guidelines/restrictions to curb this pandemic,
yet the offences as far as breach of these guidelines are concerned are bailable in nature,
which can be dealt by the Trial Court on merits.
As far as the offence u/s 153A IPC is concerned except for mere assertion,
there is nothing on record to show that the alleged hate speech to promote enmity between
different groups was done in the presence or at the behest of the applicant/accused. Even
during hearing, this Court has inquired from Ld. APP and so far, there is nothing against the
accused in the alleged video. It is not the case where there chances that applicant/accused
will abscond. Conspiracy is no doubt hatched behind closed doors and that the investigation
in the present matter is at nascent stage that however, does not imply that liberty of a citizen
be curtailed on mere assertions and apprehension. In B.P Sharma Vs. Union of India,
(2003) 7 SCC 309, Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar, J. observed that "it is always better, nay,
necessary too that the freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution should be allowed to be
enjoyed by the citizens to the fullest-possible extent without putting shackles of avoidable
coweb of rules and regulations putting check and restrictions in the enjoyment of such
freedoms."
As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the
considered opinion that the applicant/accused deserves to be released on bail subject to
filing of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount and subject to
the following conditions:-
1) The applicant shall continue to cooperate with the ongoing investigations and shall join
the investigation as and when summoned by the IO;
2) The applicant shall not leave the country without the permission of the court;
3) The applicant shall scrupulously appear at each and every stage of the proceedings before
concerned Court so as not to cause any obstruction or delay to its progress.
Needless to say that nothing observed herein shall have any bearing upon the
merits of the case.
In view of the above, present application stands disposed of. Proceedings be
sent to the Court concerned through proper channel.
Copy of the order be sent to Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused through
email/whatsapp.
(UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN)
Link MM/PHC/NDD
11.08.2021
Udbhav
Kumar Jain
Digitally signed by
Udbhav Kumar Jain
Date: 2021.08.11
18:02:13 +05'30'

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Jammu kashmir hc order
Jammu kashmir hc orderJammu kashmir hc order
Jammu kashmir hc orderZahidManiyar
 
M p bangle seller bail
M p bangle seller bailM p bangle seller bail
M p bangle seller bailsabrangsabrang
 
Pinky chaudhary bail order
Pinky chaudhary bail orderPinky chaudhary bail order
Pinky chaudhary bail ordersabrangsabrang
 
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc orderJammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc orderZahidManiyar
 
Delhi riots bail feb 3
Delhi riots bail feb 3Delhi riots bail feb 3
Delhi riots bail feb 3sabrangsabrang
 
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021ZahidManiyar
 
Alok bajpai v__state_of_up
Alok bajpai v__state_of_upAlok bajpai v__state_of_up
Alok bajpai v__state_of_upsabrangsabrang
 
Tripura hc order oct 8
Tripura hc order oct 8Tripura hc order oct 8
Tripura hc order oct 8sabrangsabrang
 
Jodhpur hc order july 28 parole
Jodhpur hc order july 28 paroleJodhpur hc order july 28 parole
Jodhpur hc order july 28 paroleZahidManiyar
 
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
 
Allahabad hc judgement aug 3 order
Allahabad hc judgement aug 3 orderAllahabad hc judgement aug 3 order
Allahabad hc judgement aug 3 orderZahidManiyar
 
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgment
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgmentPocco ipc j pushpa judgment
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgmentZahidManiyar
 
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210
Kerala hc  order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210Kerala hc  order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210ZahidManiyar
 
Sc judgement 02-aug-2021
Sc judgement 02-aug-2021Sc judgement 02-aug-2021
Sc judgement 02-aug-2021ZahidManiyar
 
Delhi riots bail order feb 16
Delhi riots bail order feb 16Delhi riots bail order feb 16
Delhi riots bail order feb 16sabrangsabrang
 

Tendances (20)

Jammu kashmir hc order
Jammu kashmir hc orderJammu kashmir hc order
Jammu kashmir hc order
 
M p bangle seller bail
M p bangle seller bailM p bangle seller bail
M p bangle seller bail
 
Pinky chaudhary bail order
Pinky chaudhary bail orderPinky chaudhary bail order
Pinky chaudhary bail order
 
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc orderJammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc order
 
Delhi riots bail feb 3
Delhi riots bail feb 3Delhi riots bail feb 3
Delhi riots bail feb 3
 
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
 
Alok bajpai v__state_of_up
Alok bajpai v__state_of_upAlok bajpai v__state_of_up
Alok bajpai v__state_of_up
 
Tripura hc order oct 8
Tripura hc order oct 8Tripura hc order oct 8
Tripura hc order oct 8
 
Up hc order
Up hc orderUp hc order
Up hc order
 
Jodhpur hc order july 28 parole
Jodhpur hc order july 28 paroleJodhpur hc order july 28 parole
Jodhpur hc order july 28 parole
 
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7
 
Allahabad hc judgement aug 3 order
Allahabad hc judgement aug 3 orderAllahabad hc judgement aug 3 order
Allahabad hc judgement aug 3 order
 
Posh order
Posh orderPosh order
Posh order
 
Sudha may 21 hc order
Sudha may 21 hc orderSudha may 21 hc order
Sudha may 21 hc order
 
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgment
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgmentPocco ipc j pushpa judgment
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgment
 
J and k hc order
J and k hc orderJ and k hc order
J and k hc order
 
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210
Kerala hc  order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210Kerala hc  order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210
 
Sc judgement 02-aug-2021
Sc judgement 02-aug-2021Sc judgement 02-aug-2021
Sc judgement 02-aug-2021
 
Delhi riots bail order feb 16
Delhi riots bail order feb 16Delhi riots bail order feb 16
Delhi riots bail order feb 16
 
Crpc: Anticipatory Bail
Crpc: Anticipatory BailCrpc: Anticipatory Bail
Crpc: Anticipatory Bail
 

Similaire à Ashwini upadhyay bail order

jandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdf
jandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdfjandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdf
jandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdfsabrangsabrang
 
javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...
javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...
javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...sabrangsabrang
 
Mandeep puniya bail order
Mandeep puniya bail orderMandeep puniya bail order
Mandeep puniya bail orderZahidManiyar
 
Sharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs stateSharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs stateZahidManiyar
 
Sharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs stateSharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs stateZahidManiyar
 
Rajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdf
Rajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdfRajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdf
Rajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdfsabrangsabrang
 
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25sabrangsabrang
 
Preet pal vs state
Preet pal vs statePreet pal vs state
Preet pal vs stateZahidManiyar
 
Shahrukh pathan bail denied order
Shahrukh pathan bail denied orderShahrukh pathan bail denied order
Shahrukh pathan bail denied ordersabrangsabrang
 
Allahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdf
Allahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdfAllahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdf
Allahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdfsabrangsabrang
 
Delhi hc may 24 bail delhi riots
Delhi hc may 24 bail delhi riotsDelhi hc may 24 bail delhi riots
Delhi hc may 24 bail delhi riotssabrangsabrang
 

Similaire à Ashwini upadhyay bail order (20)

jandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdf
jandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdfjandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdf
jandk hc PSA bail journalist order.pdf
 
Disha bail order
Disha bail orderDisha bail order
Disha bail order
 
javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...
javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...
javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of...
 
Mandeep puniya bail order
Mandeep puniya bail orderMandeep puniya bail order
Mandeep puniya bail order
 
Nitin raj vs state
Nitin raj vs stateNitin raj vs state
Nitin raj vs state
 
Sharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs stateSharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs state
 
Sharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs stateSharjeel imam vs state
Sharjeel imam vs state
 
Rajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdf
Rajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdfRajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdf
Rajivgandhi v. The State- Madras hc SCC.pdf
 
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25
 
Preet pal vs state
Preet pal vs statePreet pal vs state
Preet pal vs state
 
Preet pal vs state
Preet pal vs statePreet pal vs state
Preet pal vs state
 
Shahrukh pathan bail denied order
Shahrukh pathan bail denied orderShahrukh pathan bail denied order
Shahrukh pathan bail denied order
 
Allahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdf
Allahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdfAllahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdf
Allahabad HC grants anticipatory bail to the accused booked for rape charges.pdf
 
Mohd. ayyub order
Mohd. ayyub orderMohd. ayyub order
Mohd. ayyub order
 
Mohd. ayyub order
Mohd. ayyub orderMohd. ayyub order
Mohd. ayyub order
 
Umar khalid order
Umar khalid orderUmar khalid order
Umar khalid order
 
Umar khalid order
Umar khalid orderUmar khalid order
Umar khalid order
 
Salim v state
Salim v stateSalim v state
Salim v state
 
Kerala hc may 4
Kerala hc may 4Kerala hc may 4
Kerala hc may 4
 
Delhi hc may 24 bail delhi riots
Delhi hc may 24 bail delhi riotsDelhi hc may 24 bail delhi riots
Delhi hc may 24 bail delhi riots
 

Plus de sabrangind

Sterlite plant order hc
Sterlite plant order hcSterlite plant order hc
Sterlite plant order hcsabrangind
 
Gauhati hc sep 9 order
Gauhati hc sep 9 orderGauhati hc sep 9 order
Gauhati hc sep 9 ordersabrangind
 
6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)
6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)
6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)sabrangind
 
Karbi anglong agreement pg 1-converted
Karbi anglong agreement pg 1-convertedKarbi anglong agreement pg 1-converted
Karbi anglong agreement pg 1-convertedsabrangind
 
Resolution sept 5, 2019
Resolution sept 5, 2019Resolution sept 5, 2019
Resolution sept 5, 2019sabrangind
 
Resolution may 10, 2019
Resolution may 10, 2019Resolution may 10, 2019
Resolution may 10, 2019sabrangind
 
August 17, 2021 resolution
August 17, 2021 resolutionAugust 17, 2021 resolution
August 17, 2021 resolutionsabrangind
 
To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)
To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)
To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)sabrangind
 
M.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failure
M.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failureM.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failure
M.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failuresabrangind
 
Press statement - Shweta Bhatt
Press statement - Shweta BhattPress statement - Shweta Bhatt
Press statement - Shweta Bhattsabrangind
 
Sanjiv bhatt fs
Sanjiv bhatt fsSanjiv bhatt fs
Sanjiv bhatt fssabrangind
 
Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019
Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019
Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019sabrangind
 
Press note - Ram puniyani
Press note - Ram puniyaniPress note - Ram puniyani
Press note - Ram puniyanisabrangind
 
Hapur Lynching
Hapur LynchingHapur Lynching
Hapur Lynchingsabrangind
 
Press release an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of india
Press release  an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of indiaPress release  an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of india
Press release an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of indiasabrangind
 
‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...
‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...
‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...sabrangind
 
EC Order on giriraj singh
EC Order on giriraj singhEC Order on giriraj singh
EC Order on giriraj singhsabrangind
 

Plus de sabrangind (18)

Sterlite plant order hc
Sterlite plant order hcSterlite plant order hc
Sterlite plant order hc
 
Gauhati hc sep 9 order
Gauhati hc sep 9 orderGauhati hc sep 9 order
Gauhati hc sep 9 order
 
6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)
6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)
6.40 pm ed final 210907 statement with list of signatories (javedsaab)
 
Karbi anglong agreement pg 1-converted
Karbi anglong agreement pg 1-convertedKarbi anglong agreement pg 1-converted
Karbi anglong agreement pg 1-converted
 
Resolution sept 5, 2019
Resolution sept 5, 2019Resolution sept 5, 2019
Resolution sept 5, 2019
 
Resolution may 10, 2019
Resolution may 10, 2019Resolution may 10, 2019
Resolution may 10, 2019
 
August 17, 2021 resolution
August 17, 2021 resolutionAugust 17, 2021 resolution
August 17, 2021 resolution
 
123456 2
123456 2 123456 2
123456 2
 
To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)
To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)
To chief justice of punjab and haryana high court (1)
 
M.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failure
M.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failureM.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failure
M.l.expert's opinion on rhabdomyolysis to renal failure
 
Press statement - Shweta Bhatt
Press statement - Shweta BhattPress statement - Shweta Bhatt
Press statement - Shweta Bhatt
 
Sanjiv bhatt fs
Sanjiv bhatt fsSanjiv bhatt fs
Sanjiv bhatt fs
 
Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019
Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019
Mha gazette on NRC may 30 2019
 
Press note - Ram puniyani
Press note - Ram puniyaniPress note - Ram puniyani
Press note - Ram puniyani
 
Hapur Lynching
Hapur LynchingHapur Lynching
Hapur Lynching
 
Press release an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of india
Press release  an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of indiaPress release  an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of india
Press release an appeal to political parties & to the citizens of india
 
‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...
‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...
‘Accused can’t be indefinitely kept in jail due to his inability to produce r...
 
EC Order on giriraj singh
EC Order on giriraj singhEC Order on giriraj singh
EC Order on giriraj singh
 

Dernier

An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditSHRADDHA PANDIT
 
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateBTL Law P.C.
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Dr. Oliver Massmann
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.mike689707
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...SHRADDHA PANDIT
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsSyedaAyeshaTabassum1
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfNo One
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...Anadi Tewari
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsAurora Consulting
 

Dernier (10)

An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
 
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False ConfessionsCriminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
 
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
 

Ashwini upadhyay bail order

  • 1. FIR no. 152/2021 PS Connaught Place State Vs. Ashwani Upadhyay U/s 188/268/270/153 A IPC, S. 3 Epidemic Diseases Act & S. 51 (b) DM Act In view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order No. 439-470/RG/DHC-2021 dated 22.07.2021, matters are being taken up through video conferencing using Cisco Webex. It is certified that there was no interruption during the proceeding and all the parties were heard. Present: Sh. Sikhar Mahajan, Ld. APP for the state. Sh. Vikas Singh, Sh. Sidharth Luthra, Sh. Pradeep Rai, Sh. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Ld. Senior Advocates for the applicant/accused. Sh. Ashwani Dubey, Sh. Ardhendu Mauli Kumar Prasad, Sh. Nirmal Amabastha, Sh. Manish Kumar, Sh. Rudra Vikram Singh, Sh. Alakh Alok Srivastav, Sh. Jalaj Aggarwal, Sh. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Sh. Himashu Pathak and Sh. Chandan Kumar Singh, Ms. Shubhangi Jain, Sh. Pankaj Singhal, Ld. Counsels for the applicant/accused. This is an application for grant of bail to the applicant/accused under Section 437 CrPC (inadvertenetly mentioned as Section 439 CrPC). Reply has been filed by the IO wherein the IO has vehemnetly opposed the bail application on the ground that release of applicant/accused will be prejudicial in maintaing public tranquility and will create further serious law and order situation. There are chances that the applicant/accused will create communal disharmony. At the very outset, all the offences alleged against the accused, except for offence u/s 153A IPC, are bailable in nature hence, the hearing in the present application is confined to non-bailable offence alleged against the accused. Sh. Vikas Singh, Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of applicant/accused submits that this is blatant abuse of power by the Police. Police cannot apprehend anyone indiscriminately. It is submitted that it is an admitted fact that the applicant/accused was
  • 2. present on the spot in the morning and not at the time of alleged incident relating to hate speech committed u/s 153A IPC. The applicant/accused has left the spot at or around 11.00 am and reached his home around 12:15 pm in Ghaziabad . Ld. Senior Advocate submits that he has seen the video personally and on perusal of the said video it can be seen that the hate speech was made after it rained however, the applicant/accused has left the spot even before the rain started. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that all the offences except for the offence u/s 153 A IPC are bailable. For the purpose of Section 153A IPC, it is imperative that the hate speech should have been made at the instance of a person or the person should have actively participated in making such remarks which promotes enmity between different groups. It is submitted by Ld. Senior Advocate that had the accused been present on the spot at the time of commission of the alleged offence, the accused should have been arrested then and there. Even otherwise, the FIR should have been registered soon after the alleged offence was committed. However perusal of the FIR clearly shows that the FIR was registered belatedly. Ld. Senior Advocate further submits that the mandate of Section 41A CrPC is violated as neither any notice was served upon the applicant/accused nor any justification for arrest of the applicant/accused is provided as clearly, all the offences alleged are having imprisonment of less than 7 years. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that applicant/accused is being illegally incarcerated and therefore bail should be granted to the applicant/accused forthwith. Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Sidharth Luthra supporting the contention of Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Vikas Singh, submits that it is a clear case of non-compliance of the Arnesh Kumar judgment which is applicable in the present case. Ld. Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Munnavar vs State of MP vide order dated 06.02.2021 wherein the petitioner was released on bail, although interim, due to non-compliance of Arnesh Kumar judgement. Ld. Senior Advocate further submits that the case of the applicant/accused is distinct from the other accused person. Ld. Senior Advocate further submits that applicant/accused may be a part of the meeting at particular point of time but that does not imply that he shall be blamed for each and every thing that may have happen in his absence. Hence, the applicant/acccused be released. Countering the sbmissions made on behalf of applicant/accused, Ld. APP for the state has pointed out two main points of concern as far as the applicant is concerned.
  • 3. Firstly, Ld. APP for the state points out towards the gravity of offence in the terms of senstivity of the issue. In this regard, Ld. APP for the state submits that this is the time of a Pandemic wherein large gatherings are not being allowed to prevent spread of Covid-19 Pandemic, the gathering was held without any permission, gathering was held near Parliament during the ongoing Moonsoon Session. It was indeed a senstitive time and place when there was no need to gather, hence the applicant/accused has clearly violated against the guidlines issued to curb the Covid-19 Pandemic and Section 144 CrPC which was applicable at that place during that time. Pointing towards the second point of concern, Ld. APP for the state submits that it is a celar case of involvement of applicant/accused as the event was organized at the behest of the applicant/accused. Ld. APP for the state further submits that the gathering was an unlawful assembly in which the applicant/accused actively participated knowing the common object of that unlawful assembly. Rebutting the submissions made by Ld. Senior Advocate of the applicant/accused, Ld. APP for the state submits that there is no delay in registration of FIR as it was only after scrutinising the material available, applicant/accused was arrested. Ld. APP for the state further submits that the IO concerned has acted with due diligence in exercise of power conferred to him u/s 41 Cr.PC. Ld. APP for the state further submits that if the applicant/accused was not involved in the commision of offences, he should have acted in a bonafide manner to inform the concerned police officials regarding commision of such offences. To crack nexus and find out all the persons involved in alleged offence, Ld. APP for the state submits that custody of applicant/accused is required for proper investigation of the case. In rebuttal, Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Vikas Singh submits that the applicant accused is not denying that he was not present at the gathering however, the applicant/accused was neither present on the spot at the time of commision of alleged hate speech. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that applicant/accused has credible standing and he is a reputed member of the Bar. He is not going to abscond. The arrest of the applicant/accused is againt the rule of law. No involvement of the accused can be seen from the FIR or from the reply of the IO. Even in the viral videos applicant/accused cannot be seen. Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Sidharth Luthra countering the submissions of Ld. APP for the state, placing reliance upon the para 12 of the Arnesh Kumar judgment and submits that the non bailable offence u/s 153A IPC has maximum imprisonment of three years and
  • 4. clearly action of the police officials in apprehending the applicant/accused is against the rule of law. It is no doubt that the IO has decretion to arrest the applicant/accused u/s 41 CrPC however, such powers had to be exercised caustiously and in light of the law of the land including the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Courts. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that reliance of Section of 149 IPC by Ld. APP is misplaced as it is only relevant when a person participate in an unlawful assembly knowing the common object of such assembly. It is no where on record that the applicant/accused was present on the spot at the time of commision of offence u/s 153 A IPC. Ld. Senior Advocate, countering the submission of Ld. APP for the state with regard to failure of the applicant/accused in acting in a bonafide manner, refers to Section 39 CrPC wherein the duty to inform about the commision of offence no where enumerates the offences alleged against the applicant/accused. It is not even the case of a man at the wrong place. Sh. Ardhendu Mauli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has placed reliance upon guidlines passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (civil) No. 1 of 2020 IN RE : Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons to prevent the over crowding of prisons during this pandemic time. Ld. Senior Advoate Sh. Gopal Shankarnarayan submits that the viral videos are now in public domain and no where it can be seen that applicant/accused was present when the present offence u/s 153A IPC was committed by the applicant/accused. It is further submitted that there is no credible information available with the investigating agency to apprehend. Name of the applicant/accused is being misused by some miscreants due to which the agency had apprehend the applicant/accused. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that no reason has been provided by the investing agency why custody of applicant/accused is required when everything allegedly incriminating is available in public domain no where pointing towards the applicant/accused. Ld. Senior Advocate submits that mere presence of the applicant/accused at one point of time during the gathering cannot be attributed to the whole chain of events happened in active absence of the applicant/accused. Sh. Ashwani Dubey, Ld. Counsel assisting Ld. Senior Advocates and for the applicant/accused submits that the applicated has acted in bonafide manner and has duly offered the investigating agency for his assistance in the investigation. In this regard, the applicant/accused has also sent e-mails to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Ld. Counsel submits that the applicant/accused has deep roots in the society.
  • 5. Heard both sides at length. Perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT Delhi AIR 2001 SC 1444 held that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed it is difficult time for everyone during this pandemic and serious view should be taken against those who violates the guidelines/restrictions to curb this pandemic, yet the offences as far as breach of these guidelines are concerned are bailable in nature, which can be dealt by the Trial Court on merits. As far as the offence u/s 153A IPC is concerned except for mere assertion, there is nothing on record to show that the alleged hate speech to promote enmity between different groups was done in the presence or at the behest of the applicant/accused. Even during hearing, this Court has inquired from Ld. APP and so far, there is nothing against the accused in the alleged video. It is not the case where there chances that applicant/accused will abscond. Conspiracy is no doubt hatched behind closed doors and that the investigation in the present matter is at nascent stage that however, does not imply that liberty of a citizen be curtailed on mere assertions and apprehension. In B.P Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 309, Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar, J. observed that "it is always better, nay, necessary too that the freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution should be allowed to be enjoyed by the citizens to the fullest-possible extent without putting shackles of avoidable coweb of rules and regulations putting check and restrictions in the enjoyment of such freedoms."
  • 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant/accused deserves to be released on bail subject to filing of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount and subject to the following conditions:- 1) The applicant shall continue to cooperate with the ongoing investigations and shall join the investigation as and when summoned by the IO; 2) The applicant shall not leave the country without the permission of the court; 3) The applicant shall scrupulously appear at each and every stage of the proceedings before concerned Court so as not to cause any obstruction or delay to its progress. Needless to say that nothing observed herein shall have any bearing upon the merits of the case. In view of the above, present application stands disposed of. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy of the order be sent to Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused through email/whatsapp. (UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN) Link MM/PHC/NDD 11.08.2021 Udbhav Kumar Jain Digitally signed by Udbhav Kumar Jain Date: 2021.08.11 18:02:13 +05'30'