Bail Granted To The Supreme Court Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay Who Was An Inflammatory Speaker At The Jantar Mantar Protest

CASE BACKGROUNDS

• A video was noticed, in which one could observe that anti-Muslim slogans were being raised during the protest, and it was extensively circulated on social media platforms. Delhi Police had recorded a case in the linking with the matter on Monday, which was about detaining Mr. Upadhyay and five others on Tuesday.
• The Delhi Court on August 11 had approved bail to the Supreme Court lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, who was under arrest in connection with theraising of anti-Muslim threats, in the forms of slogans, during a marchat the Jantar Mantar.
• He had claimed that he was a victim as the Delhi Police was trying to frame him because of his high-profile status.
• People had attended the protest in hundreds, organised as the ‘Bharat Jodo Aandolan’ on Sunday, August 8. None other than Shipra Srivastava, who was the in-charge of the media of the aforementioned Aandolan, had informed that the protest was being held under the guidance and leadership of Mr. Upadhyay but rejected the associations of any kind to those who raised up the anti-Muslim catchphrases.

CASE PROCCEDDINGS

• The Court, during the hearing had also questioned the public prosecutor to come to the conclusion that there was nothing against the suspect in the video of the said protest.
• The Court also noted when it was granting bail that there would be no chance that the accused would abscond.
• The Court stated that conspiracy was without any doubt highlighted and created behind closed doors and that the investigation in the current matter was at promising stage but that in no matter or form could it imply that freedom of a citizen be abridged on sheer apprehension and assertions.

CASE RELEVANCE

• The accused was sent to the jurisdictional custody yesterday by the hon’ble Court bearing in mind that his bail application was still incomplete and pending.
• It directed Upadhyay to cooperate with the continued investigations and be a part of the probe as and when summoned with the aid of using the investigating officer.
• It similarly directed the accused not to leave the country without the Court’s consent and scrupulously to appear at each and every single stage of the proceedings before the respected Court so as not to cause any impediment or interruption to its development.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS CASE?