Natasha Narwal Vs State Of NCT Of Delhi - 2021: Bail Granted To One Of The Key Accused In The Delhi Riots Case

CRUX:
Natasha Narwal V. State of NCT of Delhi Crl. A. 82/2021-In the present case, bail was granted by the Delhi High Court to Natasha Narwal who was one of key accused in the Delhi riots Case and was convicted under the UAPA.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
15th June 2021

JUDGES:
Justice Siddharth Mridul, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

APPELLANT:
Natasha Narwal (Appellant) represented through Advocates Mr. Adit S Pujari, Ms. Tusharika Mattoo, and Mr. Kunal Negi

RESPONDENT:
State of NCT of Delhi (Respondent) represented through Special public Prosecutor Mr. Amit Mahajan, Mr. Amit Prasad, and Mr. Rajat Nair along with Advocates Mr. Dhruv Pande and Mr. Shantanu Sharma

SUBJECT

The judgement is regarding an appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act (‘NIA Act’) for impugning the order given by the Special Court that rejected the Appellant’s bail application.

AN OVERVIEW

The Appellant is a student who had completed her Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and Masters of Arts in History from Hindu College, Delhi University. Currently, the Appellant is pursuing M.Phil-Ph.D programme from Jawaharlal Nehru University. An FIR has been filed against her on the grounds of offences committed under Section 147, 148, 149, 120 B, 109, 114, 124 A, 153 A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 419, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1850 along with Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Section 25/26 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 13, 16, 17, 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. The Appellant has been kept in custody since 29th May 2020.

In this case, it has been stated by the prosecution that the Appellant had been involved in instigating people to take part in protests against the Central Government for introducing the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. It is alleged that the Appellant had tried to create feelings of persecution among people from mainly Muslim dominated areas in Delhi, particularly women. It has also been contended that she has taken part in a larger conspiracy along with ‘pinjra tod’, Delhi Protest Support Group, and Jamia Coordination Committee, with respect to the riots that took place in North-East Delhi.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Provisions of the IPC which have been referred to in this judgement:

1. Section 147: Deals with Punishment for Rioting
2. Section 148: Deals with rioting, armed with a Deadly Weapon
3. Section 120 B: Deals with Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
4. Section 124 A: Deals with Sedition
5. Section 153 A: Deals with Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups
6. Section 186: Deals with Obstruction of Public Servant from Carrying Out his Duty
7. Section 295: Deals with Defiling a Place of Worship To Cause Disrespect
8. Section 302: Deals with Punishment for Murder
9. Section 307: Deals with Attempt to Murder
10. Section 341: Deals with Punishment for Wrongful Restraint
11. Section 395: Deals with Punishment for Dacoity
12. Section 419: Deals with Punishment for Cheating by Personation
13. Section 452: Deals with House Trespass
14. Section 468: Deals with Forgery for the purpose of Cheating

ISSUES

The main issues discussed in this judgement include

1. the interpretation of the term ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA
2. the extent of the right to protest, i.e., when does an act of protest turns into a terrorist act or a conspiracy

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

The Appellant has put forth that she was not involved in any of acts or omissions that has been mentioned in the chragesheet. The Appellant has argued that she was not involved nor had taken part in any anti-CAA protests. Moreover, she has said that she was not a part of the Jamia Coordination Committee, or the Pinjra Tod or the Delhi Protest Support Group, or the Auraton Ka Inquilab WhatsApp groups. She was not present at the site of the protests on the date when the communal riots had broken out although she did admit to being a part of a protest carried out near the Madina Masjid. The Appellant has argued that her name is being dragged into such allegations on a false basis and no proof in the form of video footage showing her presence at the site of the protests had been shown. The charge that the Appellant had been a part of the protests has been made based only on the accounts of witnesses and not backed by any other form of evidence. In addition to this, the State has also not given any statement regarding any victim who has suffered due to the violence allegedly caused by the Appellant. In the chargesheet, names, addresses, phone numbers, or other details about the victims who died or were injured during the time of the Appellant’s protest have not been provided. There is no substantive or factual or concrete evidence to prove such allegations. This chargesheet is purely the State’s attempt to drag the Appellant in activities that she has nothing to do with. It has been contended that since there is no likeliness of the Appellant fleeing, or tampering with evidence or being in possession of important evidence, or influencing or threatening witnesses, she should be considered for bail.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent has alleged that the Appellant has played a role in being part of a ‘larger conspiracy’. She has been a member of the Pinjra Tod, Delhi Protest Support Group, Jamia Coordination Committee from which she has organized protests against the CAA and NRC to destabilize the Central Government. It has been claimed that she was among the leaders responsible for carrying out the protests. The Appellant has been said to have organised chakka jaams, which is a form of protest that causes stoppage of vehicles and blocking roads. It has also been contented that the Appellant has engaged in sloganeering and has delivered inciting speeches and instigated the public against the Government. Chilli packets, along with stones, acid, empty bottles and sticks have also been distributed to attack military officials and the Police. The prosecution has challenged that the contentions made by them has been backed by accounts of witnesses and the video footage showing the Appellant’s presence at the protest site has been seized.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

1. With regards to the scope of the term, ‘terrorist act’, the Supreme Court has stated that the term and its definition must be used with care so as to differentiate the heinous offence of terrorism from a conventional henious crime. As held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 602], the extent and scope of a terrorist act is always beyond that of an ordinary crime. It is not equivalent to merely a disturbance of law and order. Every terrorist act is a crime but not vice versa. The nature of a terrorist act is such that its effect overpowers the capacity of ordinary law enforcement. As held in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. vs. Union of India [(2004) 9 SCC 580], a terrorist act creates prolonged effects on the minds of the society at large and is not the same as a common law and order problem. A terrorist act cannot be used to refer to criminal acts which fall under the conventional offences defined in the Indian Penal Code. Only those acts which have a deep impact on the ‘Defence of India’.
2. Regarding the Right to Protest, the Supreme Court referred to the judgement in Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India and Anr. [(2018) 17 SCC 324], dissent is an inseparable element of democracy. People have a right to protest regardless of whether the matter of the protest is right or wrong. When protests turn violent and noisy, it no longer falls under the scope of Article 19, and in such a case, the Government has the power and authority to regulate such protests. In this case, there is nothing to prove that necessary steps were taken by the Government to control the situation. There is no such statement in the chargesheet filed which shows that there was a terrorist act committed. The elemental and factual ingredients that invite the application of the UAPA are missing. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, no offence under the UAPA can be made out against the Appellant. Hence the Court would be applying for bail under Section 439 of the CrPC.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court was of the view that the Appellant was entitled to ordinary bail, on the conditions that she had to furnish 2 local sureties for a personal bond of a sum of Rupees 50,000. She also had to provide a cell phone number for contacting the Appellant at any given time and which had to be kept active and available at all times. Moreover, the Appellant has to reside in her ordinary place of residence, surrender her passport, not travel outside the country without the Court’s prior permission, and not visit or contact or threaten any witness or person associated with the case and not tamper with any evidence or indulge in any unlawful act or omission. The appeal hence stands dismissed.