Cops’ U-turn on Kanhaiya’s bail, other 5 fail to get relief
The Centre on Tuesday rushed a Border Security Force contingent to stand guard outside the gates of JNU as the university’s teachers and students pressed their demand to drop sedition charges against arrested students union chief Kanhaiya Kumar and five others who recently surfaced at the campus. While all eyes will be on the Delhi high court on Wednesday where Kanhaiya’s bail plea will be heard, the high court told the other students to follow procedures of surrender or arrest. The Delhi police, meanwhile, made a U-turn from its earlier stand of not opposing Kanhaiya’s bail, saying this was due to a “change in circumstances”. Delhi police commissioner B.S. Bassi had earlier claimed the police would not oppose bail for Kanhaiya as “a young man like him should be given another chance”. But on Tuesday he justified his backtracking, saying: “The circumstances when I had said so... those have totally changed.” He also said the police will not “shy away” in using all its options if the five JNU students who resurfaced at the campus failed to cooperate with investigators.
The BSF was made to stand guard outside the campus gate as the police felt it lacked adequate forces as it also had to handle another major protest near Jantar Mantar. The JNU authorities, meanwhile, said the demands from teachers and students that Kanhaiya be released and that sedition charges be dropped against him and five others were matters beyond its control. JNU registrar Bhupinder Zutshi said: “We have not arrested Kanhaiya, we have also not charged anyone with sedition. It is for the police and the court to take a call. Both these demands are beyond our control.”
When Kanhaiya’s bail petition came up in the high court, additional solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the police, surprised many by opposing bail. As soon as the hearing began at 10.30 am, the judge asked: “Are you filing the status report If you were aware, you should have done it. What about the status report If you do not have the status report, I will not proceed. Ask your investigating officer to file the report.” When the ASG told the court they will file the status report in a sealed cover as “this is a pre-chargesheet bail and the status report cannot be shown to the accused”, the bench said: “I do not need it in a sealed cover. You will have to file it. Issue notice. File the status report by tomorrow.”
Later, Mr Bassi said: “We have reasonable apprehension that if he (Kanhaiya) comes out on bail, he is bound to impact the investigation and influence witnesses. He is also likely to indulge in activities violative of penal laws. That is why we opposed grant of bail to Kanhaiya and shall oppose it further too.”
As the hearing began, Delhi government senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra opposed the appearance of ASGs Mehta and Sanjay Jain and lawyer Anil Soni, saying that before appearing in the matter they should show a notification in this regard. Responding to this, Mr Jain said: “Once ASGs are appearing in this matter, you have no business to interfere in it.” At this stage, the bench intervened and said: “Let’s not fight over this issue. I will proceed only if the status report is filed.”
Once the Kanhaiya bail matter was over, the focus shifted to another court where separate petitions — one seeking the arrest of five JNU students and another that asked for security to be provided for their safe surrender. The high court, however, made it clear to the JNU students named in the sedition case that it cannot allow them to surrender in the manner they wished as it would amount to going by their “whims and fancies”. Justice Pratibha Rani, voicing her disagreement with the plea of JNU students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya that they be given safe passage and be allowed to choose the place of surrender, said: “There are procedures under the statute which have to be followed.”
The judge said: “One should not exceed the scope of any petition and the prayer made in it.” This included that the accused on surrender be sent to judicial custody by the high court itself instead of producing them before a trial court. “The remand proceedings have to be done by a trial court and it (high court) cannot go by their whims and fancies. The moment the accused are arrested, he/she has to be produced within 24 hours before a trial court judge, who will decide the remand of the accused persons,” the judge added.
When advocate Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the five students, argued for the need of safe passage to surrender, the court shot back: “What do you mean — I should give you safe passage Why this court (not trial court) Let us go by the procedure.” The two accused, who have been booked under the sedition law for raising anti-national slogans on campus, submitted they are constantly getting “life threats” and that the police was not taking adequate measures to protect them. The court, however, asked the two to mention a place for surrender, other than the high court, the confidentiality of which will be maintained.
Another plea seeking the immediate arrest of five students was dismissed by the court after the petitioner sought to withdraw it due to technical reasons. The plea was filed as a civil writ petition but as the matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justice Manmohan, the advocate sought to convert it into a criminal PIL. At the outset, the bench said: “You withdraw this plea and file a fresh writ petition. I am not going to change the nomenclature of this petition.” Later, the bench noted in its order: “The petitioner wishes to withdraw the writ petition and file a fresh petition... The same is dismissed as withdrawn.”
