AI Summit Protest Case: Court grants bail to 9 accused, sends one in police custody

New Delhi [India], March 1 : Delhi's Patiala House Court granted bail to nine individuals arrested in connection with the AI Summit protest.
However, Siddharth Avdhoot's bail plea was rejected, and he has been sent to four more days of police custody.
Duty Magistrate Ravi granted bail to nine accused in the AI Summit protest case on a bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety. The bail bonds are to be furnished on Monday.
The court granted bail to Krishna Hari, Kundan Yadav, Narsimha Yadav, Ajay Singh, Saurabh, Arbaz Khan, Ajay Kumar Vimal, Raja Gujar, and Jitendra Yadav.
Delhi Police had opposed the bail pleas of the accused.
Senior advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, along with advocates Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, Litesh Batra, and Chitwan Godara, appeared for the accused.
Advocate Mir submitted that the police had taken custody of the accused for nearly nine days.
Meanwhile, the police sought custodial remand for one accused, Siddharth Avdhoot, and judicial custody for the remaining nine accused.
Senior advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir argued that the custody of the nine accused was unnecessary and that they should be granted bail, stating, "Bail is the rule, jail is the exception."
He further submitted that there was no flight risk. "There is no apprehension of tampering with evidence, as this case emanates from a simple protest," he said.
The senior advocate further submitted that "there is apprehension of no influence of the complainant, who is a police officer and also the investigating officer and he cannot be intimated. No public person had filed the complaint."
He emphasised that "there is Freedom of expression under the Constitution of India, and criticising government policies is a fundamental right until it endangers the security of the country."
"Was any brick thrown? Was any abuse hurled?" Senior Advocate Mir questioned.
He opposed the remand application of Avdhoot and submitted that he was not available at the spot.
The protest, which was criticised for wearing T-shirts that read "India-US Trade Deal Compromised." Mir argued that the trade policy in question could affect the livelihood of farmers and promote large business conglomerates.
He submitted that the evidence has been locked in electronic form as video footage. It is captured and being analysed by the police.
"They can be bailed out, subject to an undertaking to appear before the IO as and when called. As all offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment for less than 5 years," he stated.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastav, alongwith Advocate Prashant Prakash, opposed the bail pleas of all 10 accused persons. He pressed for the judicial custody of nine accused and four days' police custody of the accused, namely Avdhoot.
During the hearing, a joint CP, a DCP, an ACP alongwith investigation team of the crime branch were present during the hearing.
APP Atul Shrivastav submitted that it was not a simple protest; it was organised by political party members. They have a right to protest. But it was organised when the AI Impact summit was going on, and the entire system was at work. This protest brought a badlight to the country.
"The accused belongs to one of the oldest political party. You should have acted in a proper manner. They should have organised the protest at some other place like Jantar Mantar," APP Shrivastav submitted.
"In a democratic country, is the way to go there in an international event to do a protest," APP questioned. "The rights of freedom and expression are subject to lawful restrictions."
"International relations going to be affected, a place where international leaders and international media was there, you chose that place," APP Shrivastav submitted. Delhi Police argued that it was not that type of a protest.
While opposing the bail plea, Delhi Police submitted that the accused persons concealed the material facts. As per the recent judgement of the Supreme Court, it is upon the accsued to disclose all the criminal antecedents.
Earlier, bail pleas were rejected by this court of four accused namely Krishna Hari, Kundan Yadav, Ajay Singh and Narsimha Yadav were rejected by this court, Delhi police said.
This fact is not in the bail application. It is a concealment of criminal antecedents, police said.
One of the accused has a case against him in Tuglak Road police station. He was granted bail by the court. These facts were not mentioned in the bail plea.
Bail granted to an accused by a magistrate has been stayed by the sessions court.
"It is a case where some persons planned, and some executed the plan. It was started with Manish Sharma, Udai Bhanu Chib and Siddharth Avdhoot. Siddharth's role is bigger than others."
APP also dealt with the contention that the alleged offences have a maximum punishment upto 5 years.
"In the offences under section 325 IPC, where the maximum can be upto 7 years, it is upon the judicial Magistrate First Class to transfer the case to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. If the punishment awarded in a consecutive manner in multiple offences, it can be 15 years in consecutive sentences in the offences alleged against the accused," APP Shrivastav added.
Delhi Police said Siddharth was part of the meeting and planning, stating, "There was a hierarchy, a structured planning. Siddharth was taking help from other persons, namely Nishad Khurram and Umesh Chandra."
"They are to be arrested and need to be interrogated," Delhi police said.
It was also said that the accused persons are a flight risk. Three accused persons fled after the incident. They were hiding in a Resort in Shimla, and they were arrested by the Delhi Police.
They gave their mobile to another person; they did not join the investigation. Kuber Meena was arrested from the ISBT, and Divyansh Girdhar was arrested from Palam. Kuber Meena is in five days' police custody, police said.
"The public has trust in the police and the judicial system. It would remain established if we are allowed to investigate in a fair manner. We have evidence at this stage," APP Atul Shrivastav argued.
"There was a well-structured plan at Himachal Sadan, Siddharth Avdhoot also did the reiki. Their mobiles are to be recovered. Manish Sharma and Vishwajeet are top conspirators, who are on the run," police said while opposing the bail pleas.
In rebuttal arguements, Senior Advocate submitted that every person has a right to protest. He can protest any place he wants to protest. Police is nobody to say where to protest.
"If a person can not protest at a place where some corporate and conglomerates are there. Should he go to the Thar desert to protest, Senior Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir argued. Should he go to Ladakh on a mountain and protest from there and post it on social media?" he asked.