Court allows Azad to enter Delhi for election, treatment

Azad, when in Delhi, will only stay at the address provided by him in the application for modification of bail conditions.

A court in Delhi modified on Tuesday the bail conditions of Bhim Army chief Chandra Shekhar Azad, allowing him to visit the national capital for medical treatment or election purposes.

Bhim Sena chief Chandrashekhar Azad during a press conference at Indian Women's Press Club in New Delhi. (Arvind Yadav/HT PHOTO)

Earlier this month, the court directed 33-year-old Azad, accused of giving “inflammatory speeches” during a protest against the newly amended citizenship law at Jama Masjid in December, not to visit Delhi for four weeks or hold any “dharna” till the assembly elections slated for February.

On Tuesday, additional district judge (ADJ) Kamini Lau, allowed Azad to visit the city, and said he should inform the concerned deputy commissioner of police (DCP) about his schedule in the city.

While in Saharanpur, Azad should mark attendance before the station house officer (SHO), Fatehpur, every Saturday till February 16, the judge ordered. If he moves out of Saharanpur, he shall email DCP (crime), Delhi, about his schedule over email or telephone.

Azad, when in Delhi, will only stay at the address provided by him in the application for modification of bail conditions.

Twenty-five days after he was arrested from outside the Jama Masjid for leading a protest against the new citizenship law, Azad was granted bail on January 15. Lau had issued the earlier bail order.

On Tuesday, the court heard a plea by Azad through his counsel, advocate Mehmood Pracha, seeking a modification. The court also criticised the police, and said most of the offences mentioned in the FIR against Azad were bailable in nature.

“Is there any material to not allow him [Azad] in the city?” the judge asked the police. “One is presumed innocent until pronounced guilty... What is the cogent material that you have against him (Azad)? What is it that you feel will create a public problem, law & order problem.”

When the police said Azad had made hate speeches, the judge said none of the FIRs pending against him mentioned hate speech.

Appearing for Azad, his counsel said his client was a social worker, and imposing restrictions on his client was a violation of his fundamental rights to take active participation in awareness campaigns, and to advise and lead the poor, weak and downtrodden sections of the society.

He also said his client was being treated at AIIMS and needed to visit the city in there was any need. He sought that Azad be allowed for weekly meetings at the Ambedkar Bhawan.