Back
Grants Bail to 17 Arrested in CEC Gyanesh Kumar Protest
In a late-night hearing on Monday, a Delhi court granted bail to 17 students and freelance journalists who were arrested during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Judicial Magistrate First Class Animesh Kumar of passed four separate orders between 9 PM and 9:25 PM, directing the release of all accused on of ₹15,000 each with one of like amount. The court observed that the accused were young, not , and had their entire careers ahead of them, while also noting that most of the offences invoked were in nature.
Background: The Protest and Arrests
The arrests stemmed from a protest held in New Delhi against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, who has been accused of allowing irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The controversy escalated after a report by The Indian Express revealed that two Election Commissioners had recorded objections to decisions taken by the poll panel without their knowledge. Protesters gathered at Jantar Mantar, but and paramilitary personnel prevented large groups from reaching the site. An FIR was registered at under multiple provisions of the , including Sections 223(a) (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 221 (obstructing public servant in discharge of duty), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 190 (wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent), 191(2) (threats to cause disturbance to public servant), and 3(5) (criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of ). Additionally, was invoked. Police alleged that the accused were part of an , obstructed public space, manhandled police personnel, and damaged public property.
Court Proceedings and Bail Decision
During the hearing, the investigating officer sought 14 days of , arguing that the accused could commit further offences or . The defence countered that the accused were young, several were students exercising their democratic , and that no individual role had been specified in the . Defence counsel also pointed out that although police claimed around 50 people were protesting, only 17 were arrested, and no CCTV footage of the alleged incident had been produced. They further submitted that some accused had sustained injuries and their medical examinations were delayed.
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, noting that a police official had allegedly sustained injuries as per the
. However, Magistrate Animesh Kumar emphasised the
.
"While any person has
, however, assaulting police officials on duty is serious concern which cannot be permitted under the garb of
,"
he observed. He then weighed the nature of the offences:
"However, it cannot be ignored that all the offences involved in the present case except offence punishable u/s 132 BNS and 190 BNS are
in nature. Even the offence punishable under
BNS provides for
of 2 years only."
The court specifically noted the young age of the accused and that they did not appear to be
.
"They have their entire career lying ahead. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused persons are admitted to bail,"
the judge stated in each order.
Conditions of Bail
The court imposed several conditions on the grant of bail. The accused must furnish a of ₹15,000 with one of the like amount. They are directed not to directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or influence any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor . They are restrained from committing any offence while on bail. Additionally, they must provide their correct permanent and residential addresses and active mobile numbers, keep the numbers operational, and inform the court of any change in address. They are required to appear before the concerned court on every date of hearing and cannot leave the country without prior permission. The court clarified that violation of any condition would entitle the investigating agency to seek . It also directed the jail superintendent to ensure necessary medical treatment for those who sustained injuries, as advised by the medical officer. The court ordered that a copy of the be supplied to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, for information and compliance. The accused are to be produced before the concerned court on .
Legal Analysis: vs. Offences
The court's reasoning highlights a crucial distinction under the BNS. While (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty) is and carries imprisonment up to two years, the remaining charges—such as disobedience of orders (Section 223), obstruction (), and ()—are . This distinction often influences bail decisions, especially when the accused are or students with no . The court's observation that the accused were not and had their careers ahead of them aligns with established principles that bail should not be used as a punitive measure. The decision also underscores that the right to protest, while fundamental, does not extend to violence or assault on public servants. The court's balancing act—acknowledging the seriousness of the alleged assault while granting bail—reflects a nuanced approach that respects both public order and .
Implications for Legal Practice
This ruling offers a practical example of how courts evaluate bail applications in protests involving multiple accused under the new BNS framework. For defence lawyers, the case reaffirms the importance of highlighting the nature of most charges, the youth of the accused, and the lack of specific evidence against each individual. The court's rejection of the police's request for 14 days' , despite the alleged assault, indicates that the absence of prior criminal record and the relatively low maximum sentence for the offence can tilt the scales toward bail. Prosecutors, on the other hand, will note that the court did not accept the argument that the accused might repeat the offence, especially since they were produced before the court promptly and the protest had concluded. The condition requiring medical treatment for injured accused also sets a precedent for humane treatment in custody. Legal professionals should also be aware that the court's reliance on the absence of CCTV footage and delayed medical examinations may become standard arguments in similar cases.
Conclusion
The 's decision to grant bail to the 17 students and journalists arrested in the CEC Gyanesh Kumar protest reinforces the principle that , particularly when the accused are young, , and the majority of charges are . The court has deftly balanced the right to with the need to prevent violence against public servants. As the matter proceeds to further hearing on , the legal community will watch how the trial court handles the , especially the failure to produce CCTV footage and the delayed medical examination of the accused. For now, the order stands as a significant reminder that even in politically sensitive protests, the courts will uphold and .
