On 15th June, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted bail to Natasha Narwal who was arrested in connected to her alleged involvement in the violent protests against CAA and NRC. The court held that a close reading of the allegations made against Miss Narwal showed no specific, particularised or definite act is attributed to her.
The bench also observed that “it seems in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy.”
Facts of the case:
In the present case an appeal was preferred by Natasha Narwal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 (‘NIA Act’, for short) impugning order dated 28.01.2021 made by the learned Special Court (‘impugned order’, for short) rejecting the appellant’s bail application in case FIR No. 59/2020. In essence, the case cited by the prosecution against the appellant is that she was involved in instigating the local population in certain Muslim dominated areas in Delhi, particularly women, to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA) passed by the Parliament and the exercise undertaken by the Central Government for creating a National Register of Citizens (NRC), by allegedly seeking to incite feelings of persecution.
Contention of the Appellant:
Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted the following contentions:
- It was argued that the appellant was not involved or concerned with any violent protests against the CAA, whether as part of Pinjra Tod or DPSG.
- It was submitted that she was not at the said protest sites on the date when riots and communal violence are alleged to have broken out as would be evident from her call detail records (‘CDRs’) and video footage of CCTV cameras.
- It was urged that the appellant’s name is being falsely dragged into several allegations, including her having participated in various meetings which would be proved from the CDRs and relevant video-footage which are intentionally not being produced.
- It was further submitted that the State has not cited even a single statement of any actual victim of the alleged violence, since such victim would disprove the appellant’s presence during the riots and violence.
- The appellant also contended that video-footage of the protests was in fact professionally recorded by a videographer engaged by the Delhi Police; but such footage had not been produced in an effort to block-out any exculpatory evidence which would show that the appellant was not even present at the place on the dates and time alleged.
- It was pointed-out that the appellant was arrested almost 03 months after the date of registration of the FIR, without even a notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C. having been issued to her; yet she remained available for investigation at her residence throughout.
Contention of the respondent:
Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Delhi Police/State argued on the following ground:
- The appellant was engaged in a conspiracy to plan riots and destabilise the Government in the guise of an anti-CAA and anti-NRC protest by being a member of the organisation called Pinjra Tod, and as part of the WhatsApp groups under the name Warriors, Auraton ka Inquilab, DPSG, and JCC.
- It was further alleged that on 23.01.2020, the appellant was present at the Pinjra Tod office where one of the principal accused in the matter advised the persons present to escalate their planned chakka jam saying that merely giving inciting speeches would not work.
- The State’s allegation was that the appellant was amongst the leaders who organised protests at a site described as the Plot of Chaudhary Mateen in Jafrabad.
- The State also alleged that the appellant was inter alia one of the conspirators who organised and instigated the 24x7 sit-in protest led by some 300 women at the Madina Masjid, Seelampur.
- The appellant’s name was also sought to be included in the commission of the actual riots that occurred in North-East Delhi, which allegedly broke-out in execution of a ‘common conspiracy’. This was based on the statement of several witnesses.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The learned Hon’ble bench made the following observation:
- The court found that for one there was nothing to say that the Government had prohibited the protest in the first instance. Therefore, there was nothing in the subject charge-sheet, by way of any specific or particularised allegation, that would show the possible commission of a ‘terrorist act’ by the appellant within the meaning of section 15 UAPA.
- In the view of the court the subject charge-sheet and the material filed therewith does not contain any specific, particularised, factual allegations that would make-out the ingredients of the offences under sections 15, 17 or 18 UAPA.
Therefore, keeping in view the background, profile and position of the appellant, the court was of the opinion there was no reasonably basis to suspect, nor did they find any reasonable apprehension, that the appellant would either flee from justice; or tamper with evidence; or intimidate witnesses or otherwise attempt to frustrate trial.
The appellant was thus granted regular bail while setting aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2021 made by the learned Special Court.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
