Back
Grants to Himanshu Thakur in Noida Workers' Protest,
In a significant development for the ongoing industrial dispute in Noida, the has granted to Himanshu Thakur, a member of the workers’ union ' Dasta', in connection with two FIRs arising from the workers’ protest. The two separate orders—by Justice Avnish Saxena and Justice Krishan Pahal—underscored that was attributed to Thakur in the alleged , even as the State opposed on grounds of his social media activities.
Two FIRs, Two Orders
Thakur was arrested on , in connection with Case Crime Nos. 164 and 165, both registered at . The FIRs alleged that a large mob of workers had gathered at industrial establishments in Noida, engaged in stone-pelting, damaged public and company property, and assaulted employees and police personnel. The charges were brought under several provisions of the along with the and the .
On , Justice Krishan Pahal granted in Case Crime No. 164. Taking note that a , Ravi Kumar Rathore, had already been granted by a , Justice Pahal observed that Thakur's “stands explained.” He directed Thakur’s release on furnishing a , with conditions not to .
Just two weeks later, on , Justice Avnish Saxena granted in Case Crime No. 165. State counsel argued that Thakur was “instrumental in spreading the violence through out the State through the social media handle” and had “handled the internet for spreading of the hatred.” However, the court found assigned to him in the FIR, which implicated a mob of 450-500 persons. “Considering the wherein is attributed on the accused applicant,” Justice Saxena allowed the , reiterating the same bond and surety conditions.
Arguments and Counter-Arguments
Thakur’s counsel, , challenged the prosecution’s reliance on recoveries from his residence—electronic devices, books, and union literature—arguing that no weapons, explosives, or incriminating digital communications were found. He emphasized that neither the FIR nor witness statements placed Thakur at the scene of stone-pelting, gate-breaking, or vehicle-burning. “Such association or contribution to lawful organisations could not, by itself, constitute evidence of involvement in the alleged offences,” he contended.
The State, on the other hand, pointed to Thakur’s affiliation with the , , and , and his role in discussions through the ‘Bigul Mazdoor Dasta’ forum. It argued that he was a key figure in coordinating the protests and spreading hatred online.
Key Observations from the Court
- Justice Avnish Saxena (Case Crime No. 165): “Considering the wherein is attributed on the accused applicant.”
- Justice Krishan Pahal (Case Crime No. 164): “Taking into consideration that , Ravi Kumar Rathore, has already been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench… coupled with the fact that assigned to the applicant stands explained, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for .”
Implications and Next Steps
Both orders make clear that the is granted without touching the . Thakur has been directed to cooperate with the judicial process for a . The conditions require him to appear before the trial court as needed, and any breach will lead to cancellation of .
The case now proceeds to trial, where the prosecution will have to provide direct evidence linking Thakur to the violent acts. The High Court’s stance—that mere association or social media activity does not automatically prove active participation—may influence other applications arising from the same protest.
