Human Rights Defenders Data Information Knowledge Solidarity

Stan Swamy dead: NIA didn’t seek custody but kept him behind bars, opposed his plea https://indianexpress.com/article/india/father-stan-swamy-dead-elgar-parishad-case-nia-probe-7390722/ Founder of Bagaicha, a Ranchi-based organisation that works for advisasis and moolvasis, Swamy said he was targetted for protesting against the illegal detention of youngsters accused of being Maoists. October 22: Within a week of his arrest, when Swamy sought interim bail on the ground that he is susceptible to the Covid-19 infection given his age and comorbidities, including a heart condition and Parkinson’s disease, the NIA said the 83-year-old was taking “undue benefit” of the pandemic and that the pleading about his medical condition was “merely a ruse” to obtain interim relief. As ‘evidence’ of his alleged association with the CPI (Maoist), the NIA told the court there were emails exchanged between Swamy and the other co-accused Stan said he has never visited Bhima Koregaon and the documents claimed to have been found on his laptop were in a format which can be “easily manipulated and planted on an insecure digital device”. Even before his arrest, Swamy had questioned the authenticity of the documents when confronted with them, saying that they did not show details of the sender and receiver, and had no date or signature, and thus could be easily planted. The NIA claimed that in 2019, he had attended a meeting in Kolkata organised to protest against the arrest of human rights activists in the Elgar Parishad case.

No bail for Indian activists after five years in jail without trial  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ye2z33x9o 

दिल्ली दंगा मामले में पाँच को ज़मानत, मगर उमर-शरजील को नहीं मिली बेल https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SZ7UA4PtMs

Delhi riots case:Why SC denied bail to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, while granting it to 5 others https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mbt7fkxtnk  Transcript excerpts: Supreme Court bench of justices Arvind Kumar and Envy Anjaria noted that pre-trial detention cannot become indiscriminate but Omar Khaled and Sharil Imam stand on a separate footing as against the others in this case. It also said that each appeal was individually examined as all accused do not stand as equal. . It also clarified that it has consciously avoided adopting a collective or a unified approach while examining their bail please.

 the court said that it is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a primafacie allegation against the appellants Omar Khaled and Sharil
Imam. the statutory threshold stands attracted Quadi's appeal. The stage of proceedings  do not justify their enlargement on bail
end quote. 

 Today,  the bench observes that the grant of bail  ( to the others )does not amount to a dilution of these allegations leveled against them.

NO MERCY AT ALL! EVIDENCES ARE VALID- SC DENY BAIL TO KHALID AND SHARJEEL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbstpwyOM-k 

 

Speedy trial is Umar-Sharjeel’s right https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/speedy-trial-is-umar-sharjeels-right/ Justice Madan B Lokur 

An accused person is entitled, as per provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC, which was in force at that time), access to all the material and documents relied on by the prosecution in the chargesheet. In all fairness, the chargesheets, with all documents, should have been handed over to all the accused persons simultaneously with their filing. For reasons best known to the prosecution, compliance with the statutory mandate was recorded by the trial judge only on August 5, 2023 — about three years later. Meanwhile, the prosecution kept filing supplementary chargesheets one after another, with the fourth one on June 7, 2023.

Is the prosecution serious about this case? Umar and Sharjeel have been accused of grave offences, a larger conspiracy including a terrorist act resulting in the death of a large number of people, trying to engineer regime change and internationalise the protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act during the visit of the US President.

Surely, this was a case that should have been decided within six months and not one where documents were supplied to the accused after three years.