NewsClick row: HC denies interim bail, seeks police response on plea

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Friday refused to grant interim bail to NewsClick’s editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha and human resource head Amit Chakraborty, saying that allegations weren’t of such a nature where immediate relief could be given.

The two men were arrested earlier this week on charges of receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.

“The allegations don’t seem to be of such a nature that can give you immediate relief. You may be right or wrong, but we’ll have to give them (Delhi Police) a hearing,” justice Tushar Rao Gedela told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented the two arrested men.

The court sought Delhi Police’s response in the plea that also sought to quash the first information report registered against them under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)while saying that their remand application did not disclose the grounds of arrest.

The judge also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India, wherein the top court held that the Enforcement Directorate must furnish the reasons of arrest to the accused in writing.

“Mr Mehta, please tell us one thing, so far as the order that has been passed on remand, there appears to be something missing there because it’s of 6:00am. The only thing is on the application of remand you don’t disclose the grounds of arrest. Today there is a Supreme Court judgment (Pankaj Bansal v UOI) staring in the eye. You already have the benefit of three days of remand,” the bench told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the city police.

The high court also directed that the case diary till Monday be produced and directed the investigating officer to ensure that the medical condition of Chakravarty is not compromised.

Calling the remand order as ex facie violative of law and unsustainable, Sibal urged the bench to release them as no grounds of arrest were given to them. Whether the horizons are short or elaborate it makes no difference and that’s a constitutional protection. If you look at the remand application, there is no mention of grounds of arrest being communicated,” Sibal contended.

Mehta urged the court to grant him time to seek instructions.

“Kindly have it on Monday. It will be a bit unreasonable on me to not even have one working day. I’ll put in my reply. Several facts are pleaded and I don’t have the document. I’ll have to take instructions. It meets more than the eye,” he said.