Express News Service
The Delhi High Court on Friday asked why the “grounds for arrest” were not mentioned in the remand application of the Delhi Police in the UAPA case against arrested-NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha and the news portal’s Human Resources (HR) head Amit Chakraborty.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also sought the response of the Delhi Police after hearing Purkayastha and Chakraborty’s plea challenging their arrest, remand, and an FIR registered against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which is allegedly connected to a Chinese funding case and posted the matter for Monday as the first in the Supplementary list.
During the hearing, representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the arrest was illegal, saying “No grounds of arrest are given to me”. He also pointed out that both the accused persons are entitled to counsel as per High Court rules.
He submitted, as per rules, if the 24 hours are expiring after the arrest then a temporary remand be issued so that the counsel can appear. However, no such order was issued and in the remand order, there is no mention of grounds of arrest being supplied.
Though Sibal argued for interim protection till the next hearing on Monday, the single-bench, however, refused the petitioner’s release.
“Why should I be in jail? Prima facie, if the (remand) order is wrong,” the senior counsel asked.
To this, the court pointed out that it is not possible for a release due to the nature of the allegations of the case.
On the other hand, appearing for Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, sought time for a response despite suggestions for a hearing on Saturday.
This time, the court pointed out the ‘missing’ in the remand order. ” In the remand order, there appears to be something which is missing there because it’s 6 AM and the counsel was not heard,” the court said. “In the application for remand, you don’t disclose the grounds of arrest. There is a judgment of the Supreme Court staring in the eye,” the court said.
ALSO READ | NewsClick raids: FIR says funds came from China to disrupt India’s sovereignty
Counsel appearing for Amit Chakroborty submitted that his client is 59 per cent physically challenged on which the court directed the IO to ensure that his medical condition is not compromised.
On Thursday, a sessions court allowed a copy of the UAPA case’s first information report (FIR) to both Purkayastha and Chakrabort.
The Delhi Police had opposed this, arguing the ‘sensitive nature’ of the case while saying police can withhold the FIR in such cases. However, despite the opposition, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hardeep Kaur directed the cops to provide a copy of the FIR to them.
The duo was arrested on October 3 after the Delhi Police searched 30 locations connected with the online news portal and its journalists in a case filed under the anti-terror law UAPA following allegations that it received money for pro-China propaganda.
The Delhi High Court on Friday asked why the “grounds for arrest” were not mentioned in the remand application of the Delhi Police in the UAPA case against arrested-NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha and the news portal’s Human Resources (HR) head Amit Chakraborty.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also sought the response of the Delhi Police after hearing Purkayastha and Chakraborty’s plea challenging their arrest, remand, and an FIR registered against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which is allegedly connected to a Chinese funding case and posted the matter for Monday as the first in the Supplementary list.
During the hearing, representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the arrest was illegal, saying “No grounds of arrest are given to me”. He also pointed out that both the accused persons are entitled to counsel as per High Court rules.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
He submitted, as per rules, if the 24 hours are expiring after the arrest then a temporary remand be issued so that the counsel can appear. However, no such order was issued and in the remand order, there is no mention of grounds of arrest being supplied.
Though Sibal argued for interim protection till the next hearing on Monday, the single-bench, however, refused the petitioner’s release.
“Why should I be in jail? Prima facie, if the (remand) order is wrong,” the senior counsel asked.
To this, the court pointed out that it is not possible for a release due to the nature of the allegations of the case.
On the other hand, appearing for Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, sought time for a response despite suggestions for a hearing on Saturday.
This time, the court pointed out the ‘missing’ in the remand order. ” In the remand order, there appears to be something which is missing there because it’s 6 AM and the counsel was not heard,” the court said. “In the application for remand, you don’t disclose the grounds of arrest. There is a judgment of the Supreme Court staring in the eye,” the court said.
ALSO READ | NewsClick raids: FIR says funds came from China to disrupt India’s sovereignty
Counsel appearing for Amit Chakroborty submitted that his client is 59 per cent physically challenged on which the court directed the IO to ensure that his medical condition is not compromised.
On Thursday, a sessions court allowed a copy of the UAPA case’s first information report (FIR) to both Purkayastha and Chakrabort.
The Delhi Police had opposed this, arguing the ‘sensitive nature’ of the case while saying police can withhold the FIR in such cases. However, despite the opposition, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hardeep Kaur directed the cops to provide a copy of the FIR to them.
The duo was arrested on October 3 after the Delhi Police searched 30 locations connected with the online news portal and its journalists in a case filed under the anti-terror law UAPA following allegations that it received money for pro-China propaganda.
