Delhi court rejects activist’s bail plea
nNEWDELHI: A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed the bail application of student activist Safoora Zargar, arrested in connection with the the north-east Delhi riots of February, and charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Zargar, a member of the Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC), was arrested on April 12. She was accused of organising anti-ciitizenship (Amendment) protests that led to clashes between opponents and supporters of the law that acquired a communal colour in February, degenerating into riots that left 53 people dead.
“Right of speech and expression and for that matter, protest or demonstration is not an absolute right and subject to reasonable restrictions under the Indian Constitution.” the court stated.
Special judge Dharmendra Rana said that “there is prima facie evidence to show that there was a conspiracy to at least blockade the roads (chakka jam)”. It also said the police had rightly invoked the UAPA and it can be proved from the material on record. “From the material available on record, one cannot ignore the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have conspired to cause disruption of such an extent and such a magnitude that it would lead to disorderliness and disturbance of law and order at an unprecedented scale. Therefore, I cannot but disagree with the defence counsel that the provisions of UAPA could not have been validly invoked,” the judge said.
The judge also said that a larger conspiracy was discernible and a second investigation by way of a separate first information report to unravel the conspiracy, as contended by public prosecutor Irfan Ahmed, sounded not only logical but is perfectly legal.
The court’s order came on a plea by Zargar, through her counsel, who had contended that the investigating agency (special cell) was creating a false narrative to implicate innocent students who do not back the government’s policy or legislation.
Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Zargar, told the court that his client was present at the protest site but did not make any “inflammatory speeches” which had led to violence and subsequently the riots.