Additional sessions judge Dharmender Rana said that not even an iota of evidence had been brought to his notice connecting the perpetrators of the violence on January 26 with the accused or with the Poetic Justice Foundation, in a censure of the Delhi Police case against Disha Ravi.
The judge held that Ravi had no connection with pro-Khalistani organizations, Poetic Justice Foundation (PJF), and Sikhs for Justice, and that there was not an “iota” of evidence linking her to the violence that rocked Delhi on Republic Day.
• The court granted the bail saying there was “scanty” and “sketchy” evidence to back charges of sedition against Ravi.
• It asserted that citizens could not be jailed simply because they disagreed with government policies.
• Additional sessions judge Dharmender Rana released the 22-year-old activist on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two sureties of similar amounts
In short, Ravi had been accused of sedition and arrested without it actually being established that her actions had fomented violence. And in court the prosecution was seeking to further restrict her liberty “on the basis of propitious anticipations”.
Police said Ravi, along with two other activists, created the toolkit to spread misinformation and incite unrest as part of a global conspiracy.
The court rejected the police’s argument and said it could not be presumed on “surmises or conjectures” that Ravi supported secessionist tendencies or violence, simply because she shared a platform with people who gathered to oppose the farm laws.
The court said the right to dissent is enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution. It added the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to seek a global audience. The court said there are no geographical barriers on communication. It added a citizen has the fundamental rights to use the best means of imparting and receiving communication, as long as the same is permissible under the law and as such have access to the audience abroad.
buy vidalista online https://www.conci.com/wp-content/themes/twentyfifteen/inc/new/vidalista.html no prescription
Stating that the “nub of the issue is whether applicant/accused Disha was merely involved in peaceful protest and dissent against the farm acts or she was actually involved in seditious activities under the guise of protesting against the said legislation,” he referred to the interpretation of the word ‘sedition’, as prescribed under IPC section 124A, and the Supreme Court rulings in this regard.
Citing the Bombay High Court ruling in Arun. G. Gowli v/s State of Maharashtra, ASJ Rana said it was “observed that conspiracy cannot be proved merely on the basis of inferences” and has to be backed by evidence.
He categorized the material collected against Ravi under different subheads. On ‘Engagement with secessionist forces’, he said the ASG had pointed out that a pro-Khalistani secessionist group, Poetic Justice Foundation, and people associated with it were directly linked to the creation of the Toolkit document, that Mo Dhaliwal and Anita Lal, known pro-Khalistan activists, were the persons behind PJF.
The court was also told that Ravi’s associates Nikita and Shantanu attended a Zoom meeting in which 60-70 people, including Dhaliwal and Lal, participated.