Ex-deputy responds for attempted murder against 4 federal police; he has been imprisoned since october 2022
the defense of Roberto Jefferson asked the Federal Court on Monday (27.Feb.2023) that the former deputy (PTB-RJ) be tried for minor bodily injury instead of attempted murder against 4 federal police officers. He is accused of shoot officers 60 times while resisting arrest for having cursed Minister Carmen Lúciaof stf (Federal Court of Justice), on October 23, 2022. The information is from the newspaper Folha de S.Paulo.
Jefferson’s lawyers claimed in the 126-page brief that the former congressman did not intend to kill the federal police by shooting and throwing grenades at them. At the time, 2 agents were injured.
In addition to the request for a change in the criminal classification, the defense criticized Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the STF. The minister was responsible for determining the arrest warrant for the offenses committed against Minister Cármen Lúcia.
“It is absolutely unbelievable what is happening in the face of Mr. Roberto Jefferson through the completely illegal performance of Minister Alexandre de Moraes”, highlighted the document, signed by lawyers João Pedro Barreto, Juliana David and Fernanda Carvalho. The piece was forwarded to Judge Abby Ilharco Magalhães, from the 1st Federal Court of Três Rios (RJ)
PREVENTIVE PRISON MAINTAINED
Judge Abby Magalhães maintained Roberto Jefferson’s preventive detention on January 5 of this year. Thus, he cannot have the detention converted into precautionary measures (anticipation, as a precaution, of the effects of the court decision before the trial) – that is thefull of the decision (344 KB).
Document ofMPF (Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office) cites the need for the defendant’s preventive detention to be reviewed every 90 days. Otherwise, it will have to be converted into precautionary measures.
In the decision, the judge cited the high offensive potential of the weapons seized at the former congressman’s house, including grenades and restricted-use weapons. She also mentioned that he shot the PF vehicle 50 to 60 times.
3 days after the attack, Minister Alexandre de Moraesturned Jefferson’s red-handed arrest into preventive.
EL PAÍS offers the América Futura section open for its daily and global informative contribution on sustainable development. If you want to support our journalism, subscribe here.
It’s historical. Ecuadorian justice has brought a company to trial for the first time for the crime of trafficking in persons for the purpose of labor exploitation: Furukawa Plantaciones CA, a Japanese firm that markets and exports abaca, a variety of banana used to make paper money in half the world. The judge in charge, Susana Sotomayor, also named Marcelo Almeida as the direct perpetrator and Hugo Chalen and Paúl Bolaños as co-perpetrators of the crime, to which is also added that of child and adolescent labor. Iván Segarra, former field administrator and Adrián Herrera, manager since 2019, the other two defendants are dismissed. Although both the Prosecutor’s Office and the private prosecution appealed this latest decision, they celebrate this first step in which they have been working for almost four years. “We believe that calling Furukawa to trial was very accurate and coherent given the more than one hundred elements collected by the Prosecutor’s Office,” explains Alejandra Zambrano, a lawyer who is a member of the case’s litigation team. “Above all, it seems fair to the victims, who have the right to demand accountability, sanctions, and reparation,” she added minutes after the hearing held this Monday.
“This is not another case. In no way,” said Sotomayor, who stressed that the victims had in common “vulnerability in their history and lack of job opportunities.” It is the first time in the history of the Andean country that a company and three senior officials will sit on the bench for practices of modern slavery. After basing the strength of the case on the intervention of at least eight State portfolios, the judge intoned the “mea culpa”: “I ask myself a question: What was the participation of public institutions before the start of the criminal process? Are they not the calls to guarantee the right to integrity of Ecuadorians? Aren’t these institutions the ones that have to guarantee the health of citizens? Aren’t these state institutions the ones that have to provide guarantees to citizens? What happened? What happened to these institutions?
These emphatic statements by the judge are also questioned in the other process currently open in the Constitutional Court, in which it is currently being debated whether or not the State is responsible. Patricia Carrión, a lawyer for the Ecumenical Commission on Human Rights, says that “they won half.” “They, the dismissed, are also part of those indicated by the victims of the case. That’s why we’re going to appeal.” However, the joy is palpable: “The plaintiffs had never won anything. They always believed that they had no way to access justice. It’s a very exciting time.”
For Santiago*, 57, still a resistance worker for the company, this is great news. “What I have understood is that we are winners, right? It satisfies me a lot. My little heart flutters with joy. I don’t know if my colleagues have heard the hearing but for my part I thank God and the team of lawyers. I send you a bone-breaking hug”. And he adds: “The judge understood what the company was doing to us. The evidence is in our favor.”
The Japanese company had been in the spotlight since 2018, with a report from the Ombudsman’s Office, published in the first half of the following year, which reported a situation of servitude or modern slavery during the almost six decades of the company’s history. . The agency detailed “subhuman” housing conditions, child and adolescent labor and the absolute absence of labor rights from its own census of 1,244 people. That is why he urged ten State portfolios to put an end to the abuses. And in subsequent reports they confirmed the complaints of the entity. “It was shown that they lived in terrible conditions,” the current ombudsman, César Marcel Córdova Valverde, explained to América Futura a few days ago. “I continue working in the company because I have to eat something”, continues Santiago*. “We are not lying, we have led a life of much exploitation. The only justice that will be given is when they recognize what they did and comply with the reparation measures.
The private prosecution demands public apologies and measures of non-repetition. “In addition to, obviously, financial compensation to the victims, who are mostly people for whom it is practically impossible to rejoin the labor market,” Alejandro Morales, lawyer for the 106 plaintiffs, explained by telephone. Although the process “just started” there is relief among the plaintiffs and their litigants. “It’s a first step, but it’s the one that touched,” Zambrano said.
*None of the testimonial names are real because the legal process is still ongoing.
[ad_2]
#Ecuadorian #justice #takes #Japanese #company #trial #modern #slavery
( With inputs from : pledgetimes.com )
On Friday afternoon, Julius Kivimäki, the suspect in the data breach of Psychotherapy Center Vastaamo, was handed over from France to Finland.
Psychotherapy Center Suspect of a data breach targeting the reception desk Julius Kivimäki is waiting for Tuesday’s custody trial in Vantaa prison, says the head of the investigation, the crime commissioner Marko Leponen from the Central Criminal Police (krp).
Kivimäki was handed over to Finland on Friday afternoon from France, where he was arrested at the beginning of February.
KRP demands that Kivimäki be imprisoned in the district court of Länsi-Uusimaa on Tuesday, February 28.
The police demand that 25-year-old Kivimäki be arrested on probable cause on suspicion of aggravated blackmail, aggravated data breach and aggravated dissemination of information that violates private life.
According to Leponen, there is one copy of each suspected crime and all of them target the psychotherapy center Vastaamo.
KRP has not questioned Kivimäki so far.
“We will start the interrogations as quickly as possible this week,” says Leponen.
Stone Hill was arrested in France at the beginning of February. The man was arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant. The police announced a search for the suspect in October 2022.
Kivimäki has been convicted before, for example, of a hacking network that targeted 50,700 computers. He was about 15 years old when he committed the crimes. Last November, the Helsinki Court of Appeal sentenced Kivimäki to conditional imprisonment.
The data breach at the reception desk was revealed when customers’ sensitive information began to appear on the dark web piece by piece. The information of thousands of customers ended up online.
Vastaamo was declared bankrupt in February 2021.
In their announcement, the police remind that victims of a data breach can still file a criminal complaint and fill out an electronic statement form. Instructions can be found on the websites of the police and the Crime Victims Emergency Service.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed actor Mohanlal’s plea against a trial court order rejecting the state government’s move to withdraw prosecution proceedings against him in a case related to illegal possession of ivory tusks.
Justice A Badharudeen was of the view that an accused in a case “have no right to challenge an order refusing withdrawal of prosecution” since the said procedure is the prerogative of the prosecution.
The court, however, also set aside the trial court order and directed it to consider afresh the state government’s plea to withdraw prosecution in the case.
“…the prayer for withdrawal of prosecution of the present case sought for by the government requires reconsideration by the trial court,” the high court said.
It directed the parties to appear before the trial court on March 3.
“There shall be a direction to the trial court to hear and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of copy of this order, at any rate within a period of six months,” the high court said.
The state government had sought withdrawal of the prosecution contending that it would be a futile exercise and wastage of the court’s time.
The magisterial court, in its June 2022 order, indicated that it was not inclined to grant the prayer as the withdrawal petition was filed in a hasty manner without addressing the challenges raised before the High Court regarding legality of the ownership certificate issued to Mohanlal.
The state government had on February 7, 2020 extended consent for withdrawal from prosecution in this case.
The trial court, in its order, had noted that there was no gazette notification in this case and hence the alleged certificate of ownership of the tusks has no legal sanctity and was void ab initio.
Four elephant tusks were seized from the actor’s house in a raid conducted by the Income Tax authorities in June 2012, following which a case was registered against him.
The complainant had alleged that the top actor had used his clout to bury the case without any further investigation.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday was informed by Shahrukh Pathan, who had aimed a pistol at a policeman during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, that the conclusion of the trial has been delayed for a long time now and that for more than a year now, only two witnesses have been examined out of 40.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with Pathan’s bail plea, which he moved last year in January in a case related to rioting and causing injuries to police personnel; charges against him have already been framed in this case.
Simultaneously, he is facing charges in another case in connection with aiming a pistol.
A trial court had rejected his bail plea in December 2021.
Pathan’s counsel Advocate Khalid Akhtar submitted: “There is a huge delay in the conclusion of the trial. Only two witnesses have been examined so far out of about 40. Until now, only two witnesses have been examined. I have been attacked in jail too,” he said.
Akhtar, while urging the court for an early hearing, submitted: “The bail application has been pending for 14 months now. I filed the bail application here in January 2022.”
The judge then listed the matter for the next hearing on May 2 and directed both Pathan and Delhi Police to file brief written submissions.
A single-judge bench of Amit Sharma on February 9 had asked Pathan to file an application before the trial court for an early hearing of his plea alleging that he was assaulted by jail officials.
Justice Sharma, who was dealing with a similar petition moved by Pathan, had said that since a plea has already been moved before the trial court, it is only just if an application is filed before the concerned court.
His counsel Akhtar had contended that the trial court, which listed the matter for the next hearing on February 28, has not passed any order or direction that relevant CCTV footage be preserved or produced.
Akhtar had said: “There was no order to the effect that some adequate safety measures be provided to him.”
To this, Justice Sharma had orally said that the prerequisite is that Pathan moves an application before the concerned court, and if it does not work out, the court will grant him the liberty.
“You move an application for an early hearing before the trial court. If nothing happens, we will see. We will give you the liberty,” he had said.
Pathan had withdrawn his plea post getting liberty from the HC to move to the trial court for an early hearing of his pending plea.
Though Pathan is an accused in various cases registered during the riots, the petition was moved in the case of aiming a pistol at Head Constable Deepak Dahiya on February 24, 2020. Social media was abuzz with his pictures.
The First Information Report (FIR) in this case was registered under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In December 2021, the trial court framed charges against Pathan and other accused in the FIR.
On January 30, a court discharged a man accused of selling a pistol to Pathan.
“The case against accused Babu Wasim is essentially based on surmises and conjectures rather than actual material or evidence and there is no ground to presume that the accused committed an offence under Section 25 Arms Act. He is accordingly discharged for the said offence,” Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had said.
Pathan had disclosed that he had purchased a pistol and 20 rounds from Babu Wasim by paying Rs 35,000 in December 2019, the prosecution had said.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday in an interim order stayed the trial proceedings against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a case registered against him in 2014 in Uttar Pradesh during the election campaign.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stayed the trial proceedings and also issued notice on Kejriwal’s petition. The matter will be heard after five weeks.
During the election campaign in 2014, Kejriwal had allegedly said that “those who believe in ‘Khuda’ won’t be pardoned by ‘Khuda’ if they vote for BJP”.
Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court order which rejected his plea for discharge from the case.
The High Court while dismissing Kejriwal’s plea had said, “It appeared that Kejriwal is threatening the voters in the name of ‘Khuda’ knowing fully well that if he uses the term ‘Khuda’, some set of voters belonging to different religions might have severely been influenced.”
Earlier, Sultanpur Court had dismissed his discharge application.
During the case hearing today, the bench expressed disapproval of the statement made by Kejriwal and said, “Why are you bringing God? In a secular country, leave God alone. God doesn’t need anyone’s protection, he can take care of himself.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Arvind Kejriwal said, “Sometimes during political campaigning, unintentional things are said.”
“There are no allegations of any law and order problems or communal disharmony happening after the speech,” Singhvi added.
Singhvi while urging that the proceedings against Kejriwal be stayed said, “Now that I am the Chief Minister, I will be called to UP every time. The discharge has been dismissed, the whole object is to call me and arrest me.”
Advocates for a Chinese journalist and activist who has been held in detention without trial for almost 18 months have said she needs urgent medical attention.
Huang Xueqin and Wang Jianbing, a labour rights activist, were detained in September 2021 and formally arrested a month later. They have been accused of inciting subversion of state power, and held in Guangzhou without access to family or lawyers.
Advocates and human rights groups have said the pair should never have been arrested. This week they said information had been brought to them that raised concerns about Huang’s health in particular. They said they were told she has lost a lot of weight, stopped menstruating, and is suffering from untreated long-term conditions and deficiencies.
“It is of great concern that these conditions, if not treated promptly and appropriately, have the potential to gradually cause permanent damage to the body,” they said.
The advocates also accused authorities of “trying to exert mental pressure and physical torture” of Huang, through repeatedly waking her at night for interrogation and depriving her of sleep.
“These circumstances are only the tip of the iceberg of what we can learn about Huang Xueqin’s detention situation,” the advocates said. “Due to the inability to learn more about Xueqin’s current appointment of official lawyers, it is difficult for us to obtain information on her physical and mental health and the progress of the case.”
The Guardian contacted the Guangzhou No 2 detention centre, but an employee said he was not aware of the case and declined to comment.
Huang is an independent journalist and was a prominent voice of the #MeToo movement in China. She and Wang were detained at Wang’s house shortly before Huang was scheduled to leave China for the UK to begin a master’s at the University of Sussex. Dozens of their friends and contacts were questioned by public security officials in subsequent weeks, in a manner the US-based Chinese Human Rights Defenders organisation described as harassment and interrogation.
“Those interrogated shared afterward that authorities downloaded the contents of their smartphones for investigation and pressured them to sign fabricated testimonies asserting that Huang and Wang had organised gatherings at Wang’s apartment to discuss politically sensitive topics,” the organisation said.
William Nee, a researcher at the organisation, said the latest news of Huang’s health was “alarming”. “She should never have been detained in the first place, but this now adds extra urgency for the Chinese government to release her,” Nee said.
He said Huang was a “victim of incommunicado detention, which is a gross human rights violation”.
Under an increasingly authoritarian environment in Xi Jinping-ruled China, human rights groups, activists, lawyers and protesters are increasingly targeted by authorities, with growing concerns about the number of detentions, arrests, interrogations and convictions.
Li Maizi, a veteran feminist activist in Beijing, said feminists were particularly targeted. “Once you are a feminist, you are a feminist activist. You are going to be stigmatised as a traitor, a Hong Kong movement supporter, [as] are trying to divide our country,” she said.
Li said Guangzhou used to be a “free space” for activism but had become “very hostile” in the last decade, prompting many to leave.
“I think Huang Xueqin’s case is under this background,” Li said.
Additional reporting by Amy Hawkins
[ad_2]
#Journalist #held #trial #China #urgent #medical #attention
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
When Hong Kong police arrested dozens of pro-democracy politicians, lawyers, scholars, journalists, NGO workers and activists in early morning raids across the city on 6 January 2021, a sense of terror spread across the city.
Under Beijing’s new national security law, the most influential members of Hong Kong’s civil society were accused of “conspiring to subvert state power” by holding primaries for pro-democracy candidates in the Hong Kong legislative election.
In the following months, many who had been active in pro-democracy activities fled the city. Some who tried to escape got arrested at the airport.
Observers say the current trial of the group, who came to be known as the “Hong Kong 47”, symbolises the death of the city’s civil society and is an extension of Xi Jinping’s crackdown on their mainland Chinese counterparts. During Xi’s decade in power, China’s fledgling civil society has almost completely dissolved after a series of crackdown on human rights lawyers, liberal scholars, journalists, NGO workers and underground churches.
Chinese authorities want to send the same chilling message to Hong Kong that, as on the mainland, critical voices deemed a threat to the regime will be severely dealt with, veteran Chinese activists say.
“The Communist Party believes civil society is a threat to a dictatorial regime. They need to crackdown on the most outspoken voices in society because those are the free voices that refuse to bow to government control,” said Dr Teng Biao, a former mainland rights lawyer who called for the abolition of death penalty and has himself been detained in extralegal “black jail.”
“[The party] feared the influence of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movements and liberalism would spread to mainland China,” said Teng, now a visiting professor at the University of Chicago. He noted Hong Kong’s pro-democracy groups have supported mainland dissidents and their families for decades and staged vigils to commemorate victims in the Tiananmen crackdown for 30 years.
Among those arrested were Hong Kong’s most outspoken figures in its previously robust civil society. They include legal scholar Benny Tai, a key initiator of the primaries, dozens of pro-democracy lawmakers and district councillors, journalist-turned-lawmaker Claudia Mo, young activists Joshua Wong, Tiffany Yuen and journalist Gwyneth Ho, as well as political novices such as Winnie Yu, a health worker unionist and Mike Lam, founder of a retail chain.
Former law professor Benny Tai, a key figure in Hong Kong’s 2014 Occupy Central protests who was arrested under Hong Kong’s national security law, is escorted by correctional services officers. Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP
“We believed we were doing something open and transparent, how could we have guessed [the authorities’] ridiculous, twisted mentality?” said Ted Hui, an opposition lawmaker who fled Hong Kong just a month before the mass arrests. Hui, who faced a raft of criminal charges over the 2019 anti-government protests, said he too would have been arrested if he had not escaped.
In the following months, more than 50 civil groups including unions, rights groups, independent media outlets and political parties shut down, often after being contacted by so-called “middlemen” who delivered threats or admonishments.
Since the national security law was imposed, more than 230 people have been arrested on national security charges, including newspaper editors following police raids on outspoken media outlets such as Apple Daily and the Stand News. Politically sensitive books have disappeared from bookshops and libraries.
Chang Ping, an influential mainland Chinese writer who was fired from the state-owned Southern Weekend newspaper for his liberal views and denied a work visa in Hong Kong, said the city was now experiencing a “condensed” version of China’s crackdown.
He noted how the Chinese authorities crackdown on not only political activities but also the non-political initiatives aimed at raising people’s consciousness of rights. Groups that have been closed included those advocating patients’ rights, education rights and gender equality.
“They are repeating this pattern (of crackdown) in Hong Kong as they fear this sense of rights will extend to political demands,” Chang said.
William Nee, a researcher at US-based Chinese Human Rights Defenders, said the Chinese leadership “go after what they see as the ultimate source of instability in Hong Kong – anyone dedicated to electoral democracy, anyone opposed to their authoritarian rule.”
“Going after the most vocal and capable pro-democracy leaders is a way to systematically crush dissent and instil fear in the population,” he said.
In the short term, the government has succeeded in “killing the chicken to scare the monkey” – silencing critics by making an example of the most outspoken ones.
“Those going to trial may be detained for two or three more years before final judgement, so the government can’t lose in its effort to wipe out the leadership of civil society even if the court of final appeal should ultimately grant acquittal to an accused,” said China law expert Jerome Cohen at New York University, on the 47.
Staff members from Hong Kong’s Apple Daily pose at newspaper’s headquarters in June 2021. Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP
Sociologist Prof Chung Kim-wah, who fled Hong Kong last year after receiving threats from national security police over his independent opinion polls, believed the crackdown in Hong Kong has been even more intense than in China in the past few years, with more than 10,000 arrested over a range of public order charges over their involvement in the 2019 anti-government protests.
Chung said he expected prosecutions to intensify in the years to come “to frighten and intimidate more people into silence.”
Eva Pils, a law professor at King’s College London, said “by trying to understand these trials in mainland Chinese terms, we are beginning to normalise political persecution in Hong Kong – which is no doubt what the central authorities want us to do.”
But observers say that Hong Kong civil society’s strong roots cannot be so easily eradicated.
Hong Kong’s robust civil society has enjoyed a long history of fighting for ordinary people’s rights and checking the power of the government. Even under persecution, like their mainland counterparts, Hong Kong activists, NGO workers, journalists and lawyers are finding ways to continue their mission through less sensitive work. For instance, some journalists whose media outlets have closed turn to operating bookshops while others found new media outlets focused on non-political issues.
“The crackdown sends a chilling message to society, but it also appeals to people’s sense of justice and inspires people to get involved,” said a mainland Chinese NGO worker who declines to be identified for fear of reprisals. “The ‘Blank paper’ movement is an example.”
Ted Hui says he looks forward to a day when he could return to Hong Kong, although it might be a long wait.
“We have to compete with (the Chinese Communist Party) to see who will last longer,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Trial #Hong #Kong #symbolises #Chinas #attempts #dissolve #civil #society
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has vacated the stay on trial in the 2010 killing of criminal lawyer Shahid Azmi and rejected a plea filed by an accused seeking a change of the trial court on the grounds of “bias”.
Azmi was shot dead in his office in suburban Kurla on February 11, 2010.
At the time of his death, Azmi represented many accused in the 7/11 train blasts cases, Malegaon 2006 bomb blasts cases, the Aurangabad arms haul case, and the Ghatkopar blasts case. Hansal Mehta’s 2013 film Shahid’ starring Rajkummar Rao is based on the life and work of Azmi.
The prosecution case is that Azmi was killed at the behest of gangster Chhota Rajan.
The High Court stayed the trial in September 2022 after an accused Hasmukh Solanki moved an application to transfer the case to another sessions judge.
A single bench of Justice P D Naik on February 7 vacated the stay order and rejected Solanki’s plea seeking transfer of the case from the sessions judge in Mumbai, currently conducting the trial, to another sessions judge. Solanki had alleged bias by the present judge.
Justice Naik in the order said he did not find sufficient material on record to conclude that the trial court was biased against Solanki.
“The material on record is not sufficient to draw the conclusion that the trial court is biased against Solanki and that he would not get a fair trial before the said court. No case is made out for transfer of trial,” HC said.
Azmi had been in Tihar jail for 7 years after being charged under the now-repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act (TADA) for his alleged involvement to kill politicians.
He was later acquitted by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, he obtained an LLB degree while in prison.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday sought to know the stand of the city police as to whether a plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in connection with a 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition be remanded back to the trial court for adjudication.
The high court said there was no ground mentioned in the trial court’s order rejecting Imam’s bail plea.
A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh granted two-week time to the Delhi Police counsel to take instructions whether the trial court’s order rejecting the bail plea be remanded back. It listed the matter for further hearing on February 20.
The high court was hearing Imam’s plea challenging the trial court’s January 24, 2022 order, dismissing his bail application in the case.
Meanwhile, his counsel withdrew Imam’s interim bail plea as the court was taking up his appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying him regular bail in the case.
The bench said since section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code has been kept in abeyance following the directions of the Supreme Court, it will have to examine the trial court’s bail rejection order while keeping in mind the other sections framed against Imam.
Last year, the trial court had ordered the framing of charges against Imam under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), l53B (Imputations prejudicial to national integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of IPC and Section 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
“The other thing you (prosecution) will have to answer is what is the ground on which bail has been rejected?” the bench said.
As Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad said the ground is that charges have been framed against the accused.
“So what? That is not a ground. Where is the ground? You have to decide we are hearing appeal or fresh bail plea. There is no ground on the bail in the whole bail order. You seek instructions,” the bench said.
During the hearing, the bench said that Section 2(1)(o) of the UAPA which defines ‘unlawful activity’ is completely different from Section 124A IPC which defines sedition.
The high court perused the definitions and said that unlawful activity would be an activity which is committed against India, whereas sedition is committed against the “Government established by law in India”.
“This is the principle difference. Sedition is against the government established by law in India and it has nothing to do with unlawful activity,” the bench said.
While advancing arguments on the bail plea, Imam’s counsel said charges have already been framed against the accused and it was a case for grant of regular bail.
He said it is an admitted position that there was no overt act on behalf of Imam and the speech delivered by him rather than calling for violence, calls for non-violence as he says they will not burn down property.
He stressed the point that Imam has been in custody for three years now.
Imam had earlier sought interim release until the top court decides the constitutional validity of offence of sedition. The court was also informed that Imam’s plea challenging the framing of charges in the matter is also pending before it.
As per the prosecution, Imam had allegedly made speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019 and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019 where he threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the Northeast from India.
In his petition before the high court, Imam has said the trial court “failed to recognise” that pursuant to the directions of the top court, the basis for dismissal of his earlier bail plea, the charge of sedition, no longer existed and therefore relief must be granted to him.
On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed till further orders the registration of FIRs, probes, and coercive measures for the offence of sedition across the country by the Centre and the states until an appropriate forum of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.
