New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court on Friday said furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to a person being arrested was not mandated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act but it was “advisable” that the police henceforth provide it after redacting “sensitive material”.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while dealing with a petition by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha against his arrest and subsequent police remand in a case lodged under UAPA, said the anti-terror law only provided for the accused to be “informed” about the arrest within 24 hours of being apprehended.

The judge also held that the recent Supreme Court decision directing the Enforcement Directorate to henceforth furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing “without exception” cannot be made applicable to UAPA cases as the sensitivity of the information gathered by the investigating authorities in the latter is of “greater significance having direct impact on the issues relating to national security”.

“It is held that the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds, in writing, are not mandated by the UAPA,” the court said.

“Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (the case of) Pankaj Bansal, and also considering the stringent provisions of UAPA, it would be advisable that the respondent, henceforth, provide grounds of arrest in writing, though after redacting what in the opinion of the respondent would constitute ‘sensitive material’,” the court said.

This approach, it said, would obviate any challenge to the arrest in a case such as the present one.

The court also observed that the order of the top court on furnishing grounds of arrest in writing, which was being relied upon the by petitioner to seek relief, was passed in view of the statutory provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and there was “no such similar statutory obligation” under UAPA.

“Clearly the PMLA is an enactment for maintaining the internal law and order in relation to financial crimes and may or may not have relation to threats to the stability, sovereignty and integrity of this country,” the court observed.

“Thus, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal while relying upon (the case of) V Senthil Balaji which was purely in relation to the provisions of PMLA cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made applicable, mutatis mutandis (with the necessary changes having been made), to the cases arising under UAPA,” it said.

The court ultimately dismissed the petition by Mr Purkayastha as well as the portal’s human resources department head Amit Chakravarty, holding that there was no “procedural infirmity” or violation of legal or constitutional provisions in relation to the arrest.

Mr Purkayastha and Mr Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 in the case lodged under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.

They subsequently moved the high court challenging the arrest as well as the seven-day police custody and sought immediate release as an interim relief.

On October 10, the trial court sent them to judicial custody for ten days.

According to the FIR, a large amount of funds to the news portal allegedly came from China to “disrupt the sovereignty of India” and cause disaffection against the country.

It also alleged that Mr Purkayastha conspired with a group – People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) – to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Imphal:

In a rare occurrence, bail has been given to five men in Manipur despite them being charged under sections of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The bail order comes after the state’s capital, Imphal, saw nearly a week of protests and shutdowns over their arrest.

Granting conditional bail to the men, one of whom is a former cadre of the banned insurgent outfit People’s Liberation Army of Manipur, the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court observed that the investigating officer could not provide strong prima facie evidence of the accused being involved in terror activities. The court also took note of the protests being held for the unconditional release of the accused. 

The five men were arrested on September 16 after they were found driving an SUV in a suspicious manner. A check revealed that they were wearing the camouflage uniforms used by security forces and had several sophisticated weapons on them, including INSAS, SLR and .303 rifles. Several rounds of ammunition were also recovered from the car. 

Police Station Break-In

Since the ethnic violence broke out between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities in Manipur in May, there have been several instances of armed people donning the uniforms of security forces and attacking villages or firing at personnel. On September 8, a Kuki-Zo village near Pallel in Kakching district was attacked by at least six men in uniform.

Protests began soon after the arrest of the five men on Saturday, and a collective of elderly tribal women, called Meira Paibis, had attempted to break into the police station where they were being held. Several security personnel sustained injuries and the police had to fire tear gas shells to disperse the protesters.

After an unofficial lockdown till Monday, a 48-hour lockdown was imposed by protesters in the Manipur valley on Tuesday. Protests turned violent in some parts of the valley, including Imphal, again on Thursday. Batons and tear gas shells were used and over a dozen people were left injured.

Bail Order

In the order, which was issued on Friday, the judge said, “The special prosecutor for the state also submitted admitting the present law and order situation between two communities and also submitted that the 5 accused persons are the village volunteers and they are doing their certain activities for the protection and safety of the villagers at large in Manipur (based on the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation) (sic)”. 

“It is also admitted that a large number of people, including a large number of womenfolk are also demanding unconditional release of the 5 accused persons by declaring 48 hours general strike and even thronged into the police stations demanding the same on the ground that they are doing certain activities for the safety and protection of the villagers at large,” the order read. 

The judge said the prosecution has not been able to provide strong prima facie evidence of the accused being involved in terror activities. “The prosecution story does not show prima facie that all the accused are the members of the terrorist organisations except to say that accused No.1 was a one-time member of the banned organisation of PLA in the year 1996 and later joined the Kangleipak Communist Party,” the court said.

“The police paper also does not disclose any specific terrorist acts done by the accused persons except mentioning of being member of the terrorist organisation against the accused person No.1 only (sic),” the order added.

Ethnic Violence

Over 180 people have lost their lives and more than 3,000 have been injured in the violence in Manipur, which began on May 3, when a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ was organised in the hill districts to protest against the Meitei community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe status. 

More than 60,000 people remain displaced and property worth thousands of crores has been destroyed.