Top
News Updates

Sedition Case: Delhi Court Asks Police to Serve 10 Days Prior Notice To Shehla Rashid If Her Arrest Is Required

Karan Tripathi
15 Nov 2019 11:57 AM GMT
Sedition Case: Delhi Court Asks Police to Serve 10 Days Prior Notice To Shehla Rashid If Her Arrest Is Required
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Additional Sessions Judge Satish Kumar Arora at Patiala House Court on Friday issued a direction to Delhi Police that in case need arises of arresting Shehla Rashid in a sedition case against her, a prior notice of 10 days need to be served to her.

The Court issued this order while disposing off an application moved by Shehla Rashid seeking anticipatory bail in a sedition case against her.

While dictating the order, the court also noted that the investigation is at the preliminary stage and the decision has been reached by taking into record the nature of the allegations and submissions made by the Investigating Officer.

On September 3, an FIR was lodged against Rashid for sedition by a Supreme Court lawyer Alok Srivastav who had also asked for her arrest.

The said FIR has been lodged for the tweets Rashid posted in light of the abrogation of Article 370, wherein she had mentioned that army has been torturing civilians and also have been ransacking houses.

FIR mentions the following sections of the Indian Penal Code: 124-A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief)

Earlier in September, another ASJ Pawan Kumar Jain had granted Rashid an interim protection from arrest by citing that the investigation was at a very nascent stage, hence the arrest could not be warranted. 

Next Story
Share it