Delhi riots case: Line blurring between right to protest and terrorist activity, says HC; grants bail to student activists

Devangana Kalita has 4 circumstances registered towards her whereas three circumstances have been framed towards Natasha Narwal.

Scholar activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha have been granted bail by Delhi High Court. They’re accused within the northeast Delhi riots case filed beneath the stringent provisions of the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act. Granting the bail, a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and A J Bhambhani stated that the road between the appropriate to protest and terrorist exercise appears to be getting blurred. “We’re constrained to specific, that it appears, that in its nervousness to suppress dissent, within the thoughts of the State, the road between the constitutionally assured proper to protest and terrorist exercise appears to be getting considerably blurred. If this mindset positive aspects traction, it could be a tragic day for democracy,” stated the court docket. The bail was granted topic to furnishing Rs 50,000 private bonds with two native sureties every.

The court docket additionally directed {that a} copy of the order be equipped to the counsels of the accused individuals expeditiously. Devangana Kalita has 4 circumstances registered towards her whereas three circumstances have been framed towards Natasha Narwal. The court docket additionally directed the accused individuals to supply their telephone numbers to the native SHO and inform the police in case of a change of residence. They’ve additionally been requested to not contact witnesses or tamper with the proof.

Jamia Millia Islamia College pupil Asif Iqbal Tanha had challenged a trial court docket’s order dismissing his bail utility. The trial court docket had stated that Tanha allegedly performed an lively function in the complete conspiracy and added that there are cheap grounds for believing the allegations towards him to be prima facie true.

Then again, the Delhi Police opposed his bail within the Excessive Court docket stating that the riots had been premeditated and Tanha was part of the conspiracy.

Tanha’s counsel contended that he was neither current in Delhi through the riots nor did he go to any of the rioting and violence websites. The counsel stated that there was no bodily proof connecting Tanha to the riots and no allegations with respect to any funds being acquired by him for terrorist actions.