[Disha Ravi Bail] "Police Made Conscious Decision To Arrest But Liberty Cannot Be Restricted Further": Delhi Court Grants Bail To Accused

A Delhi Sessions Court granted bail to Disha Ravi in connection with the FIR related to Farmers Protests and the alleged toolkit.

Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana granted bail to Ravi observing that even though it was conscious of the difficult task to prove the prosecution's case in the affirmative viz. the offence of conspiracy, it was virtually impossible for the defence to prove it in the negative and that even though the police made a conscious decision to arrest the accused, it could not be permitted to restrict Ravi's liberty further.

The Judge, while granting bail to Ravi outlined three broad heads on the basis of which the Court analysed the grant of bail to the 22 year old.

1) Engagement with secessionist forces:
Court has stated that it is not mere engagement with persons of dubious credentials which is indictable, rather, it is the purpose of engagement which is relevant for the purpose of deciding culpability. In this context, court noted that there was absence of evidence to the effect that the applicant/ accused agreed or shared a common purpose to cause violence on Republic Day with the founders of Poetic Justice Foundation, a pro-Khalistani organisation. Court stated that it cannot be presumed by resorting to surmises or conjectures that she also supported the secessionist tendencies or the violence caused on Republic Day, simply because she shared a platform with people, who have gathered to oppose the legislation.

2) Use of 'Toolkit':
Court observed that a perusal of the said 'Toolkit' revealed that any call for any kind of violence was conspicuously absent.

"In my considered opinion, Citizens are conscience keepers of government in any democratic Nation. They cannot be put behind the bars simply because they choose to disagree with the State policies. The offence of sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of the governments," said the Court while relying on Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar v. Emperor AIR 1942 FC22.

Court further quoted the Holy Hindu Text of Rigveda, stating that our civilisational and cultural ethos, tracing back 5000 years embodied respect for expression of divergent opinions.

"The right to dissent is firmly enshrined under Article 19 of The Constitution of India. In my considered opinion the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to seek a global audience. There are no geographical barriers on communication. A Citizen has the fundamental rights to use the best means of imparting and receiving communication, as long as the same is permissible under the four corners of law and as such have access to audience abroad," stated the Court, while placing reliance is placed upon Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161

3) Conduct of accused:
Court stated that being the editor of an innocuous toolkit is not an offence and deletion of whatsapp group chat titled "Intl Farmers Strike" becomes meaningless when it has been found that the toolkit itself had nothing objectionable in it. Court noted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant accused subscribed to any secessionist idea.

"Further, the prosecution has, except for pointing out that applicant/accused forwarded the toolkit to Ms. Greta Thunberg, failed to point out as to how the applicant/accused gave global audience to the 'secessionist elements’."

On the aspect of vandalising the Indian Embassies and attacking symbols of India, i.e. Yoga & Chai, the Court stated that apart from bare assertions, no evidence had been brought to it in order to prove that it was at the behest of sinister designs of the applicant and her co-conspirators.

In this background, Court granted bail to Ravi on the condition that the applicant deposit a personal bond/ surety of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties each on the condition that she is required to cooperate with the ongoing investigations and shall join the investigation as and when summoned by Investigating officer, she shall not leave the country without permission of the court and appear at each and every stage of the proceedings before court.

"The applicant accused is already reported to have been interrogated in police custody for almost about five days and placing any further restraint upon her liberty on the basis of general and omnibus accusation would be neither logical nor legal. No specific article, sought to be recovered from the possession of the accused, has been brought to my notice. The resistance to the bail plea seems to be more of ornamental in nature," the Court noted.

Case Title: State v. Disha A Ravi