Jantar Mantar hate speech case: No bail for Sudarshan Vahini prez
New Delhi: Observing that the accused was "instrumental in organising the protest at Jantar Mantar" even if he may not be the person who was directly giving out inflammatory and hatred speeches, a Delhi court has denied bail to one Vinod Sharma, national president of Hindu outfit, Sudarshan Vahini.
The court of Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil while denying bail to Sharma noted that the same was evident from the material placed on record like banners and posters of the event where his contract details and photographs are printed.
In its order, the court said that it was "necessary to observe that the accused, despite being aware of the intention of the protest rally, organised thereto out of his free will participation and subsequent. ASJ Antil further noted that it was difficult to say that "there was no prima facie material against the accused" which will attract IPC section 153A which pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion.
"The presence of the accused as a participant of an unauthorized assembly or a protest congregation, not as a curious onlooker or a bystander, suggests active participation in the object of the assembly," the order read, adding that mere person of a person in an unauthorized value without attribution to a specific overt act may still be enough to fasten criminal liability vicariously.
ASJ Antil further said that criminal sharing, overt or covert by active presence or by distance directions making out a certain measure of jointness in commission of the Act would be sufficient to attract provisions of Section 34 of IPC (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
"...investigation is at crucial juncture; number of persons are yet to be identified and interrogated; witnesses are yet to be examined; and taking note of the stature of the present applicant and his antecedents there is a strong possibility of him interfering in the investigation of the case and /or influencing and threatening the witnesses, if enlarged on bail at this stage," the court further stated.
Sharma, who was represented by Advocate Rajat Aneja told the court that his client had not uttered any inflammatory words or objectionable slogans against any religion or any other particular section of the society.
