Jantar Mantar event: Court to hear Upadhyay’s bail plea today
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Tuesday sent lawyer and former BJP spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay, along with three others, to judicial custody for two days in connection with the alleged anti-muslim sloganeering at an event on Jantar Mantar on August 8.
Duty magistrate Tanvi Khurrana also sent two more accused, Vinit Bajpai and Deepak Singh, to police custody for one day, rejecting the police’s request for three days’ custodial interrogation. The judge said that the “time period sought for police custody remand is not justified”. The court said the purpose for which the police was seeking a remand of three days can be conducted within one day.
Additional public prosecutor
Atul Shrivastava, representing the probe agency, said the police will require the custody of the accused to reveal the connection of the accused persons with other outfits, to find the source of funding for the event, the hidden agenda behind commission of offence, the object thereof, the modus operandi behind the huge gathering, the source of spreading information and identification of other accused persons.
The police urged the court to remand Upadhyay and three other accused, Preet Singh, Vinod Sharma and Deepak Kumar to 14 days judicial custody.
Shrivastava submitted that the accused may create “unruly situation”, and it will not be appropriate to release them in wake of important events such as the Independence Day and the ongoing monsoon session of the Parliament.
The judge, directing that Upadhyay’s bail application be heard on Wednesday, also told the police to read out the contents of the FIR to him.
Upadhyay’s counsel, Ashwani Dubey said despite arresting his client, the police did not give a copy of the FIR to him.
“My client is cooperating in the investigation and as soon as he received a call at midnight, he rushed to the police station at 2am. Since then, he is not being allowed to take calls. He has also not been provided with a copy of the FIR and is not being allowed to meet his family,” Dubey said.
Shrivastava said the FIR cannot be given to the accused because it is sensitive and “they are under no obligation to supply the document in line with a Supreme Court order”.