CM home vandalisation: Court denies bail to 8, says they exceeded their right

The court noted that despite being told that they can protest at a particular place, the protesters and their leaders did not comply

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.

BJYM members vandalised the property outside Delhi CM’s home on March 30. (Sourced)

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, as they still continued with their protest,” the court said in his order.

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 departmental action against the police officials for not giving any notice to the accused persons before arresting them.

As per section 41 (a) CrPC and rules laid down by the Supreme Court, if an offence was punishable with imprisonment less than seven years and the accused were not arrested from the spot but later, the police must serve prior notice to them.

In this case, all the accused persons were arrested the same day after the protest, and no notice was served to them.

Denying relief to the accused, the court agreed with the submission of the police officials 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.

“It is further stated that they are still awaiting reply to the notice given to the concerned official of CM house regarding the CCTV footage and the damage to the boom barrier. Further, even the period to seek police remand is not yet over. Therefore, having regard to the manner in which the present offence is committed, the very initial stage of the investigation and the role assigned to the present accused persons, this Court is not inclined at this stage to grant them regular bail,” the order read.

The police submitted that during the incident, few of the police officials sustained injuries caused by BJYM protesters.

It was further argued by the prosecution that during the course of investigation, so far eight accused persons are arrested at the instance of eye witnesses.

It was submitted that search for co-accused is still ongoing, and the offence is serious in nature and investigation is at a very initial stage.

Senior advocate Kirti Uppal, appearing for the accused persons, argued that despite the fact that admittedly all the offences were punishable with imprisonment less than seven years, the police did not serve any notice and arrested the accused illegally.

He argued that in any case there was no intention to hurt anyone, and it was only a demonstration which is a right of every citizen and political party under the Constitution.