Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad Allowed to Visit Delhi as Court Modifies Special Bail Conditions
Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad Allowed to Visit Delhi as Court Modifies Special Bail Conditions
Additions Sessions Judge Kamini Lau noted that the prosecution had failed to produce any material which suggests his presence in Delhi in the future could lead to violence.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday modified the conditions of the bail order for Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad, allowing him to visit the capital whenever for election purposes.

Additions Sessions Judge Kamini Lau noted that the prosecution had failed to produce any material which suggests he indulged in anything that is against law and order, public order or national security, or that his presence in the capital in the future could lead to violence.

The judge had granted bail to Azad, accused of inciting people to violence during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Jama Masjid on December 20, on January 15 but on the condition that he return to Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh and not participate in any protest for the next one month. The judge had said she does not "want any trouble in Delhi during the elections".

On Tuesday, however, judge Lau said that it is fair that he should be allowed to participate in the elections. "In democracy when election is the biggest celebration, which should have maximum participation, it is fair that he should be allowed to participate", the judge said.

The court has, however, asked Azad to inform the DCP (Crime) to inform him about his visit and also give his day’s schedule. He has also been asked to stay only at the address given to the court whenever he is in Delhi.

In the petition, Azad had said that the condition in his bail order that he should not visit Delhi for four weeks except for treatment, affects his fundamental rights.

The judge also discarded the prosecution's submission that Azad had indulged in hate speech and said that no offence relating to hate speech was mentioned in the FIR registered against him. She also pointed out in her order that most of the offences in the FIR were bailable and there was no material showing his prima facie involvement in the non-bailable offences alleged.

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://umatno.info/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!