UP POET FINED ₹1 CR OVER ANTI-CAA STIR

BAREILLY: Moradabad district administration has slapped a fine of ₹1.04 crore on Congress leader and poet Imran Pratapgarhi for participating in anti-CAA protest. “Apart from one company of RAF, one and a half company of PAC has been deployed... it puts the daily expenditure on the security arrangement at approximately ₹13.42 lakh...” a notice said.

BAREILLY: Congress leader and poet Imran Pratapgarhi has been slapped with ₹1.04 crore fine for participating in anti Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protest in Moradabad and for allegedly instigating the protesters at the city’s Eidgah premises.

“Apart from one company of Rapid Action Force (RAF), one and a half company of Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) has been deployed at the protest site, it puts the daily expenditure on the security arrangement at approximately ₹13.42 lakh...” reads the notice issued by the additional district magistrate to Pratapgarhi on February 6.

According to the notice, a total amount of ₹1,04,08,693 could be charged from Imran for the deployment. A large number of women are among the anti-CAA protesters sitting at the Eidgah since January 29.

Moradabad district magistrate Rakesh Singh on Saturday said that the fine [on Imran Pratapgarhi] had been calculated on the basis of the daily cost of the deployment of police and paramilitary forces at the Eidgah protest site.

He said the action was being taken against all those who were defying the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure. “No permission was sought from the administration for the demonstration, so it is illegal,” Singh said. In the same notice, he was also directed by the additional city magistrate to appear before him on February 12 but he defied the order.

Pratapgarhi said, “The government is trying to find new ways to scare the agitators. But we cannot afford to be afraid of such tactics as the fight is now for (our) existence.”

A protester, however, claimed that the Eidgah was a private place and the prohibitory order could not be imposed there.