'Serious But Not Habitual Offender': Delhi Court Grants Bail To 17 Protesters

Several students who were arrested during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi were granted bail late last night, with the court directing the jail authorities to ensure necessary medical treatment for those who sustained injuries.

In four separate orders passed between 9 PM and 9:25 PM, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Animesh Kumar of Patiala House Court granted bail to the 17 students who were produced before the court in connection with an FIR registered at Parliament Street police station.

According to the court, the allegations against them were "serious", but they were not "habitual offenders".

"Accused persons are of very young age and do not appear to be habitual offenders. No purpose would be served by sending the accused persons to judicial custody as they are students and their career prospects may get hampered," the court noted.

The court directed that the students be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions.

The court also directed the students not to directly or indirectly induce, threaten or influence any person acquainted with the facts of the case, or tamper with evidence. They have also been restrained from committing any offence while on bail. As part of the bail conditions, the students have been directed to provide their correct permanent and residential addresses and active mobile numbers, keep the numbers operational, and inform the court in case of any change of address. They also must regularly appear before the concerned court on every date of hearing and cannot leave the country without prior permission of the court.

The court also made it clear that in case of violation of any bail condition, the investigating agency would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

A case was filed by the Delhi police, alleging that the students were part of an unlawful assembly, obstructed or blocked public space, manhandled police personnel and damaged public property. The investigating officer had sought 14 days' judicial custody, submitting that the accused could commit further offences or interfere with the investigation. 

The court, however, sought a report from the DCP on allegations of custodial torture by two accused.