Yesterday, On 21st May, The accused in the Kanhaiya Kumar assault case granted bail by the court. This decision allows the defendant to be released from custody under certain conditions. The case involves an incident where Kanhaiya Kumar, a prominent student leader, assaulted.
New Delhi: The Karkardooma Court, On Tuesday, in Delhi granted bail to an individual accused of assaulting Congress leader Kanhaiya Kumar and outraging the modesty of a woman politician on May 17 in the New Usmanpur area of North East Delhi.
The alleged incident occurred last Friday when Kumar, interacting with people at the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) office in New Usmanpur. The woman politician hosted the meeting. A video of the incident gone viral, showing some people garlanding Kumar and then throwing ink at him, as well as attempting to assault him. When the woman leader tried to intervene, they also misbehaved with her and threatened her.
An FIR filed by the woman politician, and the accused, Ajay Kumar alias Ranveer Bhati, granted bail by Metropolitan Magistrate Arushi Parwal. Bhati required to furnish a bail bond of Rs 25,000 and a surety bond of the same amount.
The order stated,
“In light of the fact that the offenses cited in the current FIR carry penalties of less than 7 years of imprisonment, coupled with the accused’s clean record, arguments presented, and the specifics of the case, and taking into consideration established legal precedents regarding arrest and bail, the court has granted bail to the accused,”
The accused, Ajay Kumar alias Ranveer Bhati, produced before the court after being arrested the previous day. The Delhi Police filed an application seeking 14 days of judicial custody for the accused.
The accused’s counsels, Advocates Praveen Goswami, Raman Sharma, and Amit Sharma, opposed the remand application. They argued that all the alleged offenses carried a maximum punishment of less than seven years, and as per the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. the State of Bihar, the accused should be released on bail as arrest not required. A bail application also filed on behalf of the accused.
Advocate Praveen Goswami argued that the accused has been falsely implicated, especially with respect to the offense punishable under Section 354 (Outraging the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code. He stated that the complainant was not present at the scene, and a video recording of the incident is available with the accused. Goswami further submitted that in such offenses, an arrest, generally not made, and no special circumstances in the present case to warrant the arrest of the accused. Additionally, the accused has no previous involvement in any criminal case.
Goswami also argued that even prima facie, there is no allegation of an intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant in her complaint, and there are no allegations pertaining to the offense under Section 354 IPC against the accused. The court also viewed a video clip recorded on a mobile phone regarding the incident.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Shivani Joshi, representing the state, pressed for the disposal of the remand application based on the submission of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer informed the court that the accused has no previous involvement in any criminal case.
Advocate Pradeep Teotia, representing the complainant, asserted that there exists a specific accusation of assault. These allegations related to actions committed by an unlawful assembly, which currently under investigation. Teotia argued that, a premeditated conspiracy, with members of this unlawful assembly equipped with ink to disrupt a meeting organized by the complainant regarding the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in Delhi.
He further stated that the complainant, present at the location and possesses video footage showing her accompanying Kanhaiya Kumar. The court observed that the current FIR concerns offenses including causing hurt, obstructing a path, outraging the modesty of a woman, and criminal intimidation. All these offenses carry punishments of up to seven years.
However, the Investigating Officer has not invoked any offense related to an unlawful assembly at this stage, nor has the IO sought remand for such purpose.
In granting bail, the court emphasized,
”When considering a bail application, the court must weigh two opposing interests – on one side, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and their right to personal freedom, and on the other, the State’s concern for maintaining public order and safeguarding the integrity of the investigation.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE