Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: JUDGE (MACT)­01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI

FIR No. 250/2019 PS – Darya Ganj (Crime Branch) U/S – 147/148/149/186/353/332/323/436/427/120B/ 34 IPC & Sec. 3/4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.

21.01.2020 Present: Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State with ACP Sh. Manoj Pant, Inspector Pankaj Arora and IO SI Santosh Kumar. Sh. Mehmood Pracha, Sh. O.P. Bharti, Sh. M.S. Arya, Sh. Zahid Ali, Sh. V.C. Bharti, Sh. Javed Khan, Sh. Naved Rajput, Sh. Zahid Parvez, Sh. Javed Akhtar, Sh. Zubair Akhtar and Ms. Ekta Gaur Advocates for the applicant/ accused. An application was filed on behalf of the applicant/ accused Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan seeking modification of the order dated 15.01.2020 wherein it has been pleaded that the applicant/ accused has been granted bail vide order dated 15.01.2020 on certain conditions one of which was that he shall not visit Delhi for next four weeks. It is averred that imposing the said restrictions upon the applicant/ accused is a violation of his fundamental rights to take active participation in awareness camps and to advise, lead the poor, weak, down trodden sections of the society and minority. It is also averred that the applicant/ accused is visiting throughout for aforesaid cause and due to the aforesaid restriction it has become

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 1 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com) impossible for him to personally appear and report his presence before the SHO, PS Fatehpur, District , U.P. on every Saturday by considering the fact that he even unable to visit his own house for months together. It is further submitted that the applicant/ accused is under medical treatment from AIIMS for his ailments and in case of any emergency due to his adverse condition, it would not be appropriate for him to seek permission of DCP Crime. at the risk of his life. The applicant/ accused has raised the following grounds for modification of the order dated 15.01.2020:  That the applicant/ accused is not a habitual offender and no other case, except politically motivated and politically vindicated are pending against him in any court of law.  That the applicant / accused is a social worker and Founder of Bhim Army Bharat Ekta Mission and a weekly meeting of the said society is being held for the purpose of social and political awareness of the inhabitants of Delhi at E124, B.K.Dutt Colony, Karbala, , New Delhi – 110003. The applicant is a permanent resident of Harijan Colony, Gali No.2, , P.S. Fatehpur, District Saharanpur, U.P. and has local abode at E124, B.K. Dutt Colony, Karbala, Aliganj, New Delhi – 110003 and used to attend a routine meeting of the society.  That the natural sentiments and feels of the applicant/ accused to attend aforesaid routine meeting at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Road, New Delhi are also involved.  That in terms of the order dated 15.01.2020 of this Court, the applicant/ accused has been denied the liberty to attend weekly

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 2 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

meeting of the said society and in case he is not allowed to attend weekly meetings of the said society at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi, his natural feelings and sentiments would be badly hurt.  That the applicant/ accused undertakes to abide by all other terms and conditions of the order dated 15.01.2020 and shall not give any chance of complaint about his conduct, behaviour, attitude, dealings and antecedents.  That the applicant/ accused being a social worker, is involved in getting eminent changes with regard to the social and political upliftment of down trodden masses of the country, however, in terms of the order dated 15.01.2020 he has been denied to participate in the aforesaid cause of poor, down trodden and minorities for which he has been devoting his entire life, which is his bonafide and fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution of India.  That the applicant/ accused undertakes that he would not any other objectionable or antisocial activities. It has been prayed that the order dated 15.01.2020 may be modified and the condition to the effect “.... that the applicant/ accused shall not visit Delhi for next four weeks....” be waived off in order to enable the applicant/ accused to attend the weekly meetings of his society at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Raod, New Delhi. Vide order dated 18.01.2020 this Court had directed the prosecution to file a detailed reply preferably to be signed by a senior officer of the rank of DCP along with the address verification report in

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 3 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com) respect of the Delhi address mentioned in the application. Today a detailed reply has been filed by the Investigating Agency duly signed by Sh. Rajesh Deo, DCP (Crime) wherein not only the application of the applicant/ accused has been opposed but a prayer has been made for cancellation of his bail. I note that the said reply has not been forwarded by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In his reply the DCP (Crime) has objected to the application for modification of conditions of bail, on the following grounds: (a) That while seeking bail for the applicant / accused, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant accused had submitted that his client would remain bound by any conditions imposed by this Court but now after the bail has been granted, he is seeking modification of conditions correctly imposed on him by the Court. (b) That while applying for regular bail, in his bail application only one address was provided by the applicant accused i.e. Harijan Colony, Gali No. 2, Chhutmalpur, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pardesh and no other address of his residence was mentioned but now the applicant accused has suddenly provided one more address claiming it to be his second residence i.e. E­124, B. K Dutt Colony, Karbala, Aliganj, New Delhi without providing any documentary proof, apparently with the sole object & purpose to visit Delhi.

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 4 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

(c) That E­124, B.K. Dutt Colony, Karbala, Aliganj, New Delhi­ 110003 is a property situated at First Floor and during the visit by the IO one Sh. Satish Arora a tenant of Mr. Bahadur Abbas was found residing in the premises for the last 5­6 years who denied having any links with the applicant/ accused. Statements of some other neighbors were also recorded by the IO who too have denied seeing the applicant accused at the given address. (d) That during further verification it was found that on the same building one additional floor has been constructed and however, the same was found locked. Sh. Bahadur Abbas was contacted on mobile phone but he did not join the inquiry but instead one Sh. Jaharul Hassan claiming himself to be the Manager of Sh.

Bahadur Hassan came and clarified that the 2nd floor was rented to one Rajji Abbas who was staying there with his family and the applicant / accused sometimes visited them but no documentary evidence was provided to verify if the applicant/ accused was a tenant in the property in question. (e) That according to the applicant/ accused, he is the founder of Bhim Army Bharat Ekta Mission and has been denied the liberty of attending weekly meeting of the said society being held at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi but according to the inquiry made at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road where Sh. Mahender Bhaskar, Cashier of Ambedkar Bhawan and Sh. Jwala Prasas, Member of the Committee were examined and they denied that the accused was holding any official meeting of the said society and further informed that the

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 5 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

applicant/ accused has not visited Ambedkar Bhawan for the last 4­5 months . (f) That while seeking bail from this Court, Learned Counsel for applicant/ accused sought his bail submitting that after his release, applicant accused may be permitted to visit Jama Masjid, Jor Bagh and Guru Ravidas Temple to pay his obeisance, upon which this Court had clarified that “.... the applicant /accused is free to visit these places after his release within 24 hours of his release and it shall be ensured that thereafter he is escorted to his permanent address...”. It is submitted that the applicant / accused had nowhere mentioned that once the bail is granted, he had to visit various other places to attend/ participate in camps, weekly meeting etc. and hence, the new submissions are only an afterthought. (g) That this Court while granting bail to the applicant / accused and keeping in view the pending Assembly Elections in Delhi vide its order dated 15.01.2020 has rightly in correct perspective held that applicant accused is neither a permanent resident nor and elector Delhi and hence, prohibited his visit to Delhi only for next four weeks. (h)That in the present application the applicant/ accused has mentioned that he is under medical treatment at AIIMs, New Delhi for his ailments and in case of any emergency due to his adverse condition, it would not be appropriate for him to seeking permission of DCP/Crime , New Delhi in terms of order dated 15.01.2020, at the risk of his life but it is writ large that

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 6 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

the applicant / accused has deliberately misinterpreted the orders of this Court as this Court has not imposed any restriction upon him to take permission from DCP/Crime for his visit to seek treatment at AIIMS but had only directed to intimate the DCP/Crime on his number so provided to him by the Investigating Officer, about his visit to AIIMS which condition was only interim till 16.02.2020. (i) That the applicant accused has scant respect for the law of the land. Vide its order dated 15.01.2020, this Court, on the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the applicant accused had permitted him to visit Jama Masjid, Jor Bagh and Guru Ravidas Temple to pay his obeisance but the applicant / accused willfully disobeyed the Court’s Order and apart from visiting the above three places he also visited Shri Valmiki Temple, Near Gole Market, New Delhi and addressed a Press Conference at Windsor Place. (j) That at Jama Masjid apart from paying obeisance, the applicant/ accused addressed the public and interacted with media persons in violation of the Courts orders. (k) That an inquiry with regard to the outfit of the applicant/ accused Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan i.e. Bhim Army Bharat Ekta Manch has been made from the office of he Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi and it has been informed that till date no candidate affiliated to “Bhim Army Bharat Ekta Mission” has filed nomination paper as per the details of nomination received from ROs in Form 3A till 20.01.2020.

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 7 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

Sh. Mehmood Pracha, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that Bhim Army Bharat Ekta Mission is not a political party and it is social organization. He further submits that the applicant/ accused has given the address of his friend and whenever he comes Delhi he resides there for his social obligation. At this stage, one Sayed Bahadur Abbas Naqvi has appeared and confirms that whenever the accused visits Delhi he stays along with him at second floor of E­124, B.K. Dutt Colony, Karbala, Delhi. He has also placed on record his identity proof which is taken on record. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that in so far as prayer of the DCP (Crime) seeking cancellation of bail of the applicant/ accused is concerned, he has not forwarded the same and in case if the DCP (Crime) is pressing the same, he shall place on record the cogent material for cancellation of bail. On being asked the ACP Sh. Manoj Pant submits that after the release of the applicant/ accused, there is no material to show that the applicant/ accused had fresh involvements in hate speech. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very Outset I may observe that in a Democracy where the elections are the biggest celebrations, there is need to ensure maximum participation. Democracy cannot be reduced to a farce. It is necessary to ensure that any conditions so imposed upon the accused which come in the way of participation in the elections, then they are need to be modified. While the plea of the applicant / accused is that the conditions so imposed restraining his visits in Delhi for four weeks except for the purposes of treatment, comes in the way of his right to participate in the awareness

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 8 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com) camps and to advise, lead the poor, week, down trodden section of the society and the minorities, the case of the prosecution is that the applicant / accused has a history of making hate speeches and there is a possibility that in case if he is permitted to visit Delhi for any purpose till the time of Delhi Elections, he can indulged into similar acts. In this regard, a specific query has been put to the ACP Sh. Manoj Pant if there is any cogent material available with the Delhi Police to arrive at such a conclusion. Upon this the ACP submits that the said conclusions are based upon the previous conduct of the applicant/ accused wherein he had been booked under similar cases in . I have closely examined the various provisions invoked in the other pending cases against the applicant/ accused at Uttar Pradesh upon which the prosecution has placed its reliance and I may observe that in none of these cases the applicant/ accused has been booked for any hate speeches and I am sure that in case if there was material the provisions of Section 153­A IPC would have been invoked. At this stage, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that on the basis of the statements of certain witnesses, the provisions of Section 153­A IPC have been invoked in the present case. When asked as to why this aspect was not highlighted when the bail application was being heard, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the same were invoked after the transfer of investigations to the Crime Branch and this aspect forms a part of the reply filed by the IO during the hearing of bail application. In this regard, I may observe that majority of the sections invoked in the present case are bailable in nature and in so far as the non bailable offences are concerned, there is no cogent material placed

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 9 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com) on record by the Investigating Agency, an aspect which was specifically noted in the order dated 15.01.2020. Though reliance was placed by the IO on certain statements yet there was no mention of the provisions of Section 153­A IPC having been invoked. In fact, the statement read out in the Court is vague and does not specify the words spoken or the acts which have the effect of promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion etc. and merely because the incident took place around a place of worship, per­se, would not be sufficient to justify the invocation of the said provisions. Be that as it may, this is an issue which will be decided at appropriate stage as to whether the said provision of Section 153­A IPC could have been invoked or not and suffice to say that at this stage of consideration of bail application mere invocation of a provision would not be sufficient unless the investigating agency is able to place before the Court material which is cogent, convincing and admissible in a case where the liberty of a person is sought to be curtailed. The ACP admits that as of now there is no material on record to show that after his release, the applicant/ accused has indulged into acts which affect the Law and Order, Public Order or National Security. The only apprehension is that as and when the applicant/ accused come to Delhi there can be a possibility of breach of peace. In this regard, I may observe that without any material, mere apprehensions of a particular consequence are not sufficient to curtail liberty of a citizen. At this stage, Sh. Mehmood Pracha submits that since the Code of Conduct has been imposed, the applicant/ accused himself undertakes that as and when he comes to Delhi to participate in the election process, he would

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 10 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com) himself furnish his Schedule in advance to the DCP (Crime) and also to the local DCP of the place where he is required to go so that he is not put to blame. Secondly, coming to the aspect that the applicant/ accused is a social worker and weekly meetings of the said society is being held at E­124, B.K. Dutt Colony, Karbala, Aliganj, New Delhi – 110003 and also at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi, I may observe that the inquiry conducted by police confirms that the applicant/ accused is not a resident of E­124, B.K. Dutt Colony, Karbala, Aliganj, New Delhi – 110003 nor any meeting had been held by him at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi. However, Sh. Sayed Bahadur Abbas Naqvi is present in the Court and has confirmed that the applicant / accused is his personal friend and whenever he comes to Delhi he stays with him at the aforesaid address. It has also been verified by the IO that as and when the applicant/ accused used to come to Delhi he was staying at the aforementioned address with the owner. Thirdly, I may note that the conditions restraining the visit of applicant/ accused to Delhi for four weeks has been imposed by this court, in view of the fact that he had in his bail application claimed that he is a permanent resident of Sharanpur, U.P. but now he has given his address of Delhi which has been verified and the applicant/ accused (through his counsel) has undertaken that as and when he come to Delhi, he will furnish his schedule. The ACP Sh. Manoj Pant submits that after his release the applicant/ accused had not also visited Jama Masjid but also other places. In this regard, I

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 11 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com) may clarify that the order dated 15.01.2020 does not restrict the movement of the applicant/ accused but only clarified that he was free to visit places so specified in the said order after which he was to be escorted to his permanent address at Sahranpur, U.P. On being asked the ACP Sh. Manoj Pant concedes that the applicant/ accused has not committed any violation of law except that he had visited many places within 24 hours of his release. Lastly, in so far as the medical treatment of the applicant/ accused in AIIMS is concerned, I may observe that at no point of time this court had asked the applicant/ accused to seek permission of the DCP (Crime). Rather, it was directed only to intimate to the DCP (Crime) about his visits and it was in the light of the submissions made by Sh. Mehmood Pracha who had expressed his apprehensions with regard to his personal security of the accused, that this court had directed that whenever the accused would come to Delhi, he may be granted an escort. Today again, during the course of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the applicant has made a request for grant of a PSO not only to ensure his security but also to ensure that his movement is within the knowledge of the police so that no false grounds are raised against him later. The ACP Sh. Manoj Pant also submits that if this Court is intending to waive off the conditions for bail, the condition regarding providing of escort may kindly be waived off. In this regard, after considering the rival contentions, in so far as the request for grant of personal security to the applicant/ accused is concerned, he would be at liberty to move appropriate request before the competent authority as per law. In so far as the directions for providing the escort

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 12 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com) to the applicant/ accused during his stay at Delhi is concerned, since the directions were issued only for the limited period of four weeks and this Court is intending to modify the other conditions as requested hence, the said condition is also being waived and it shall be open to the Delhi Police to examine the request of the applicant/ accused at their level as and when the same is received. In the light of the above, the condition no.1 and 2 of the bail order dated 15.01.2020 are modified as under: 1. That the applicant/ accused shall mark his presence before the SHO Police Station Fatehpur, Distt. Saharanpur, UP on every Saturday till 16.02.2020. However, if he is not in Saharanpur, U.P. i.e. at his permanent address, he shall mark his presence before the DCP (Crime) Delhi in case of his availability in Delhi. In case if he is at any other place, he shall intimate to the DCP (Crime) about the same either on telephone or through e­mail till 16.02.2020 after which he is only required to mark his attendance as aforesaid on last Saturday of every month till further orders by the Ld. Trial Court. 2. That the applicant / accused shall not misuse the benefit of bail by indulging in commission of similar offence in future and whenever the applicant/ accused is required to come to Delhi for his medical treatment or for purposes of election, he shall intimate his schedule to the DCP

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 13 of 14 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

Crime (on the number provided by the IO to the Ld. Counsel for the accused). It is clarified that this condition has been imposed only till 16.02.2020.

The other conditions shall remain the same. It is hereby clarified that whatever has been stated in the bail order dated 15.01.2020 and the present order shall not tanamount to any opinion having a bearing of merits of the case since the investigations are still at the initial stages. At this stage, Sh. Mehmood Pracha, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ accused submits that the applicant/ accused who was to come to Delhi shall not be coming today but would reach Delhi tomorrow. Mr. Pracha submits that he would duly intimate his schedule to the DCP (Crime) as well as DCP (South) or to any other authority if required under the law in view of the Code of Conduct. On request, one copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for the accused and one copy be given to the IO for purposes of compliance. The application is accordingly disposed off.

Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 21.01.2020 Judge, MACT­01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

State Vs. Chander Shekhar Azad @ Ravan, FIR No. 250/19, PS Jama Masjid, Order dated 21.01.2020 Page No. 14 of 14