Delhi Court Grants Bail to Students and Journalists Arrested in CEC Protest

Beyond the bail orders, the court expressed concern for the physical well-being of those in custody. The magistrate specifically directed the jail superintendent to ensure that all accused individuals who sustained injuries receive the necessary medical treatment, as advised by the Medical Officer.

The court further mandated that the accused be released immediately if their custody is not required for any other pending legal matters.

The Charges and Police Allegations

The Delhi Police had registered the FIR under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 223(a), 221, 132, 190, 191(2), and 3(5), alongside Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The primary allegations against the group included:

• Being part of an unlawful assembly.
• Obstructing or blocking public spaces.
• Manhandling police personnel.
• Damaging public property.

During the proceedings, the investigating officer had requested 14 days of judicial custody, arguing that the accused might interfere with the ongoing investigation or commit further offences.

Defense Arguments: Right to Dissent

The defense counsel vehemently opposed the police plea for custody, framing the arrests as an infringement on democratic freedoms. Key arguments presented by the defense included:

• Democratic Rights: The accused are young individuals, many of whom are students exercising their fundamental right to protest and dissent.
• Lack of Specificity: No individual roles or specific actions were attributed to the accused in the grounds of their arrest.
• Discrepancies in Numbers: While police claimed approximately 50 people were protesting, only 17 were arrested.
• Lack of Evidence: The defense noted that no CCTV footage of the alleged incident had been produced in court.
• Medical Negligence: It was argued that some accused sustained injuries, yet medical examinations were not conducted immediately following the incident.

Court's Observation on Protest and Conduct

The magistrate acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, particularly noting that a police official had reportedly sustained injuries. While the court emphasized that assaulting police officers on duty is a serious matter, it also made a crucial distinction regarding civil liberties.

"The right to protest peacefully could not be disputed," the court observed. The magistrate noted that, with the exception of the offence under Section 132 of the BNS, the offences involved were bailable. Furthermore, the court observed that the accused did not appear to be habitual offenders and emphasized that they had their entire careers ahead of them.

Strict Bail Conditions Imposed

While granting bail, the court imposed several stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the legal process. The accused must:

1. Furnish a personal bond with one surety of an equivalent amount.
2. Provide correct permanent and residential addresses along with active mobile numbers.
3. Inform the court immediately of any change in address.
4. Appear regularly before the concerned court on every scheduled hearing date.
5. Refrain from leaving the country without prior permission from the court.
6. Not directly or indirectly threaten, induce, or influence any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
7. Not tamper with any evidence or commit any further offences while on bail.

The court warned that any violation of these conditions would allow the investigating agency to seek immediate cancellation of their bail.