A Delhi court granted bail to 17 students and freelance journalists arrested during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The orders, issued between 9 PM and 9:25 PM on Monday, came from Judicial Magistrate First Class Animesh Kumar at Patiala House Courts. The accused included Anshika Gupta, Karishma Mehta, Rudra Pratap Singh, and others, who were detained on October 5.
The court acknowledged that the allegations were serious, including assault on police officials and damage to public property. One woman constable was injured during the confrontation. While the court noted that peaceful protest is a right, it emphasized that assaulting officials cannot be justified under the guise of dissent. The offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) were largely bailable, except for Section 132, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.
Judge Kumar observed that the accused were young and not habitual offenders, with their careers ahead of them. Bail was granted subject to a bond of ₹15,000 with one surety of the same amount. The court also imposed conditions: the accused must not commit further offences, provide correct addresses, keep their mobile phones active, attend all hearings, and seek permission before leaving India.
Delhi Police had sought a two-week judicial remand, arguing that the protests had turned violent. The arrested individuals were accused of blocking a public space under a prohibitory order, assaulting officers, and damaging a bus. They were also charged under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act for causing mischief.
The defence argued that arrests were unnecessary since the maximum penalty for the offences was seven years. Advocate Saimon Farooqui noted that only 17 of around 50 protesters were detained, and no CCTV evidence was presented. He highlighted that the accused were primarily students exercising their right to dissent, and custody could harm their futures.
Young protesters often face disproportionate consequences when demonstrations escalate. The court’s decision to grant bail reflects a balance between upholding law and order and recognizing the rights of dissenters, particularly when the accused lack prior criminal records. The conditions imposed, such as regular court appearances and maintaining contact, suggest an effort to ensure accountability without unduly restricting their freedoms.
The case stems from a protest where police alleged refusal to cooperate, including withholding personal details. The court’s ruling did not address the broader context of the demonstration but focused on the legal merits of bail for the individuals involved.
