[DELHI RIOTS] Blocking roads resulting in violence and riots a terrorist act under UAPA: Delhi Court rejects Natasha Narwal's bail plea

Intentionally blocking roads leading to disruption of essential services, attack on police personnel and eventually culminating in riots would fall within the scope of terrorist act under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a Delhi court observed on Thursday (Natasha Narwal vs State).

. The Court, therefore, dismissed the bail plea moved by Pinjra Tod activist, Natasha Narwal in connection with a Delhi riots case against her under UAPA.

. "The entire conspiracy beginning from December 2019 of intentionally blocking roads to cause inconvenience and causing disrupting (sic) of supplies of services essential to the life of community of India resulting in violence with various means and then leading to the February incident with the focus being targeted blocking of roads at mixed population areas and creating panic and attack on police personnel with facade of women protesters in front and leading to riots would be covered by the defintion of terrorist act," the Court said. . Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat opined that there was sufficient incriminating evidence against Narwal.

“..there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused Natasha Narwal are prima facie true, hence, embargo created by Section 43D of the UAPA applies for grant of bail.. hence the present application for bail of accused Natasha Narwal is dismissed.”

. There are reasonable grounds ofr believing that the accusations against the accused Natasha Narwal are prima facie true. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat . The present bail application was the first such plea moved by Narwal after filing of the chargesheet by Delhi Police.

. The counsel for Narwal sought her release on bail on the ground that no offences under UAPA were made out against her.

. It was inter alia submitted that the strict conditions of Section 43D were introduced to curb mischief after 26/11 terrorist attack after the repeal of Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

. The counsel for Narwal claimed that there was only a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which was organic and secular in nature.

. Narwal was constantly striving for peace and that the prosecution was relying upon selective messages from the WhatsApp group under scrutiny, it was stated.

. The prosecution reiterated that the present case concerned a “multi-layered, multi-organizational” and “deep-rooted conspiracy” and prima facie, case under UAPA was made out.

. The Prosecution placed reliance upon the contents of the chargesheet to claim that the riots of February 2020 were not spontaneous and were hatched by several persons including Narwal.

. Before proceeding to state its observations in relation to the bail application, the Court stated that although citizens have the right to protest, the same is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

. “ What actually has to be seen in the context of the present case is whether there was a conspiracy which led to riots under the guise of the protest against CAA or not, in terms of the contents of the chargesheet and the accompanying documents .”

. Considering the chargesheet and the material/documents before it, the Court concluded that the provisions of the UAPA had been rightly invoked.

. “ Even taking the arguments of the counsel for accused at face value that only one side of the road was blocked, it would still be a complete blockage preventing ingress and egress for the people who are surrounded and for whom panic and terror is created, ” the Court observed.

. The Court also noted that an independent authority had given its sanction for applicability of UAPA in the present case.

. Looking at the statement of protected witnesses under Section 164 CrPC, the Court added,

“ we find sufficient incriminating material against the present accused. ”

. The Court further noted that the WhatsApp group under scrutiny had a specific reference to Narwal and distribution of red mirchi powder to women for attacking police and paramilitary on February 23.

. “ ..there is contemporaneous record which cannot be wished away at this stage of bail..” , the Court stated.

. The Prosecution’s case of conspiracy also found favour with the Court as it stated there were linkages shown by the prosecution between Narwal and other accused.

. Narwal was presented by Advocate Adit Pujari. SPP Amit Prasad appeared for Delhi Police.

. [Read Order]

[DELHI RIOTS] Blocking roads resulting in violence and riots a terrorist act under UAPA: Delhi Court rejects Natasha Narwal's bail plea

Aditi Singh

Related Stories