E-Paper
SEM court directs Delhi police to give Neha Bora copies of 6 FIRs by November 20
The direction by Special Executive Magistrate Raj came after Bora’s counsel, advocate, argued that the documents earlier supplied by the police were deficient.
Prefer HTon Google
A Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) court on Wednesday directed the Delhi police to provide AISA president Neha Bora with copies of six FIRs registered against her during the protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, which were cited as her criminal antecedents while initiating proceedings to make her furnish a peace bond.
The direction by Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj came after Bora’s counsel, advocate Abhik Chimni, argued that the documents earlier supplied by the police were deficient and did not contain complete details of the FIRs, which were required by them to furnish a reply.
Also read | After Delhi HC order, Neha Bora gets documents behind peace bond notice
He submitted that despite relying on these cases as criminal antecedents to issue a show-cause notice asking Bora to execute a peace bond, the police had not provided copies of the FIRs.
High Court had directed police to share all material
The fresh direction follows the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of Bora’s challenge to the peace-bond proceedings on October 23.
While upholding the notice, the high court had directed the police to furnish all material relied upon to initiate the proceedings and asked the SEM to ensure that the principles of natural justice were followed before passing any order requiring her to furnish a bond.
Also read | ‘Nothing wrong with regime change’, Neha Bora tells Delhi HC; cops counter her
The police had earlier supplied Bora with documents, including a kalandara (a police report submitted to a magistrate) dated October 17 and three general diary entries from different police stations.
However, Chimni argued that the material provided did not adequately disclose the details of the six FIRs cited against her, leaving the defence without copies of the cases being relied upon by the authorities.
The police, represented by legal consultants Prashant Prakash and Bhagwan Dass , meanwhile, told the court that the FIRs lodged against Bora were sensitive in nature and hence they shall be provided by the next date of hearing on November 20.
Bora detained during protest march on October 16
The proceedings stem from Bora’s detention on October 16 during a protest march at Mandi House, where she and other AISA activists were demanding the resignation of Kumar over alleged irregularities in electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
After her release the following morning, the police initiated preventive proceedings and issued a notice requiring her to explain why she should not be directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000, along with one surety, to maintain peace.
The police have cited alleged provocative sloganeering, demonstrations near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders and allegations that Bora instigated people to join a protest in Connaught Place as grounds for apprehending a breach of peace.
The Delhi High Court, while rejecting her plea, held that sufficient material was available before the SEM to initiate proceedings under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It also directed that all material on which the authorities intended to rely during the inquiry be furnished to Bora.
Bora has opposed the demand for a peace bond, maintaining that it infringes upon the right to democratic dissent. She has said she would not sign the bond and would continue to challenge its use against peaceful protesters.
The direction came after Bora’s counsel, advocate Abhik Chimni, argued that the documents earlier supplied by the police were deficient and did not contain complete details of the FIRs.
He submitted that despite relying on these cases as criminal antecedents to issue a show-cause notice asking Bora to execute a peace bond, the police had not provided copies of the FIRs, hampering her ability to respond to the proceedings.
