Breaking: [Tool Kit Case] Nikita Jacob, Shantanu Muluk, Shubham Kar Chaudhuri Withdraw Plea For Anticipatory Bail As Prosecution Agrees To Give 7 Days Advance Notice In Case Arrest Is Necessary

A Delhi Court on Monday disposed of the anticipatory bail applications filed by Shantanu Muluk, Nikita Jacob and Subham Kar Chaudhuri in relation to the Greta Thunberg Toolkit case. ASJ Dharmender Rana disposed of the applications after the Applicants sought to withdraw the same on a condition that if the investigating agency finds their arrest is imminent and unavoidable, then 7 days advance notice be given; Whereby they can exercise their legal remedies. As the APP conceded to this request, the applications were disposed as withdrawn. During the hearing, the APP had expressed that the case is on an initial stage and there will be a need for custodial interrogation. The Deputy Commissioner of Police also expressed the need for custodial interrogation on the ground that the accused made false statement during investigation and also deleted certain incriminating materials before their phones and other devices were seized. "We are dependant on foreign companies for giving us information. Even though they deny they were not on zoom call, we will have to see. We will not like to have a situation where we are denied custodial interrogation at any stage," the DCP told the Court. The Judge however insisted that the matter has to be disposed of today. ASJ Rana said, "You have to tell us right now, what are the incriminating material to tell us why the custody is sought. Give them the notice in case arrest becomes imminent, satisfy the court."On being asked to take the call on the defence counsel's proposal for withdrawal, the APP said, "if the investigating agency finds arrest of accused is imminent and unavoidable then 7 days advance notice be given."Courtroom Exchange Arguments on behalf of Shantanu Muluk "Expressing solidarity is not only a right but also a duty for expressing your feelings," Advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for Shantanu Muluk (a volunteer in the youth environmental collective— Extinction Rebellion organization). She emphasized that the so-called toolkit that is the subject matter of the case was merely a google document, containing information as to what protests are taking place across the country. She insisted that this information is readily available all over the internet and does not make out a case against Muluk. "I collate information available in public domain and made a map. Then I add a link for sample photos and videos of solidarity. I did not create any content," she argued on behalf of Muluk. She insisted that if someone wishes to write to a Government representative, the alleged toolkit is a sample. "I cannot think of a more democratic form through which a citizen can express its disagreement. Pick up the phone and tell the representative," she remarked. She pointed out that the impugned Tweets on farmers protest were merely driving attention towards a public issue. In fact, the Twitter handles that were tagged in the said tweets belong to the Prime Minister of India, the UN Human Rights, United Nations, UNCW. "Who am I tagging and what am I saying in these tweets? I am saying that there are internet shutdowns in the country and this might hamper the protection of women. They are saying we should have a speedy and peaceful resolution. Will it not be an appropriate thing to say? Even the CJI said it, newspapers are saying it, government is saying it. Tweeting on a public issue is not wrong. These are the tweets they are saying are incriminating. I am saying, what is objectionable about these!" she vehemently argued. Grover emphasized that in the impugned tweets, there is no question of inciting violence. "I am not even asking anybody to step out in the street, or to cause mobs, or to cause riots. I am only saying add your voice, let's get this issue resolved. Where is the objectionable comment here!" she said. Grover relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, to argued that it unequivocally held that making comments or raising slogans is not sedition. She added that Muluk did not have any role in sharing the toolkit. "Sharing the toolkit per se, as held by your lordship, is not an offence. The entire toolkit does not have a call for any violence, whatsoever," she added. Grover further informed the Bench that Muluk has been cooperating with the investigation agency in every manner and hence, he is not required to be kept in custody. She submitted on behalf of Muluk, "Except for 4 days being Saturday Sundays and a Tuesday, I was summoned every day mostly around 10 30 and 11 and left around midnight. For 18 days I have joined investigation. If there is any material they had to unearth, I am available for interrogation. They have interrogated me rigorously." She added, "I handed over my iphone with sim card, an iPad and a Dell laptop. During investigation they said they have interest in my mother's phone. I handed over it to the...

Breaking: [Tool Kit Case] Nikita Jacob, Shantanu Muluk, Shubham Kar Chaudhuri Withdraw Plea For Anticipatory Bail As Prosecution Agrees To Give 7 Days Advance Notice In Case Arrest Is Necessary

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Breaking: [Tool Kit Case] Nikita Jacob, Shantanu Muluk, Shubham Kar Chaudhuri Withdraw Plea For Anticipatory Bail As Prosecution Agrees To Give 7 Days Advance Notice In Case Arrest Is Necessary

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers