Bail Plea rejected when protestors take law in hand

Bail plea of former municipal councillor from the Congress Ishrat Jahan, who was arrested in connection with the violence in northeast Delhi over the amended citizenship law was rejected by a Delhi Court.

Ishrat Jahan was mentioned in a Delhi Police FIR and was accused of giving provocative speeches during the time of extreme communal tension in North-East Delhi.

Jahan was arrested on February 26 for offences under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault on public servant), 332 (voluntarily causes hurt to public servant), 307 (attempt to murder), 109 (abetment), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC and relevant sections of the Arms Act.

Judge Naveen Gupta had said:

The nature of the case slapped against Jahan is very serious. When the law enforcement personnel are attacked in the manner as reflected in FIR and that too, in full public view, such deeds erodes the public confidence in the ability of police officers to do their duty… The accused (Jahan), despite being a woman, does not deserve bail at this stage.”

"In the present case, the charges are serious in nature. When the protectors of law are targeted in the manner as reflected in FIR and that too, in the gaze of general public, such actions lower the public confidence in the ability of police officers to do their duty...the accused (Jahan), despite being a woman, does not deserve bail at this stage,"

“There is no doubt that a peaceful protest is the essential right in a vibrant democracy as of ours, but this right is subject to certain exceptions provided under the Constitution of India

What does the law says?

• The Right to protest peacefully is enshrined in the Indian Constitution

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression; 

Article 19(1)(b) mandates citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.

• Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
  These reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
• In RamlilaMaidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India &Ors. case (2012), the Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.

Every case is different, but in general, here are a few factors that a judge will often consider in setting bail under section 437 CrPC:

• The seriousness of the alleged crime. 
• Past criminal record/outstanding warrants. 
• The defendant's ties to the community. 
• The probability of defendant making it to court appearances. 
• The risk to public safety. 
• Potential flight risk.