‘Exceeded right intentionally’: HC denies bail to 8
NEW DELHI: Saying that “prima facie it is clear that their fundamental right to peacefully protest is exceeded by them knowingly and intentionally”, a Delhi court has denied bail to eight people, accused of vandalising property at chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence on March 30 during a protest by members of the BJP’S youth wing, Bharatiya Jananta Yuva Morcha (BJYM) members.
Additional sessions judge Naveen Kumar Kashyap on Tuesday denied bail to Chander Kant Bhardwaj, Naveen Kumar, Neeraj Dixit, Sunny, Jitender Singh Bisht, Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Raju Kumar Singh and Bablu Kumar.
“...when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner, ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow,” the court said in its order.
The court noted that despite being told that they can protest at a particular place, the protesters and their leaders did not comply. “Not only this, it is not at one stage but at three different security layers of barricades 1, barricade 2 and barricade 3, that directions of the concerned police officials were violated. Further, it may be noted that such protesters/applicants had no regard even to the directions issued by high court which were communicated to them, as per the reply of Delhi Police that no protest is allowed at CM’S house...,” the court said.
Members of the BJYM, led by BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, vandalised property at Kejriwal’s official residence in the Civil Lines area, threw paint at the main gate, broke a boom barrier and damaged a CCTV after clashing with the security personnel over the AAP leaders remarks on the movie, The Kashmir Files, in the Delhi assembly.
Addressing a press conference after the protest, Surya said, “He (Kejriwal) mocked and called the massacre of Kashmiri Pandits untrue (in Vidhan Sabha). We demand unconditional apology from him and until he issues an apology our protests will continue.”
The court also directed the deputy commissioner of police concerned to take action against police officials for not giving any notice to the accused persons before arresting them.
Denying relief to the accused, the court agreed with the police that the investigation is at the very initial stage and they are still investigating the other offences which are committed, if any, including under section 149 (unlawful assembly) IPC.
The police submitted that during the incident, few of the police officials sustained injuries caused by BJYM protesters. The prosecution said that search for co-accused is still ongoing.
Senior advocate Kirti Uppal, appearing for the accused, argued that the police did not serve any notice and arrested the accused illegally.