Delhi Court Very Rightly Grants Bail To Ashwini Upadhyay
Delhi Court granting bail to Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, including the legal reasoning, case laws, and judicial principles involved
🔷 Background: Ashwini Upadhyay Bail Case
Ashwini Upadhyay, a Supreme Court lawyer and BJP leader, was arrested in August 2021 in connection with an alleged communal sloganeering incident at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. He had organized a protest under the banner of “Bharat Jodo Andolan” against colonial-era laws, but some individuals present allegedly raised objectionable and inflammatory slogans.
The police registered an FIR under Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with promoting enmity between groups and public mischief.
Ashwini Upadhyay was arrested and presented before the magistrate. However, the Delhi Court granted him bail, citing key legal and constitutional principles.
🔷 Legal Issues Involved
Whether Ashwini Upadhyay was directly involved in the objectionable sloganeering?
Whether custodial interrogation was necessary?
Whether the alleged offences justified denial of bail?
Whether fundamental rights of the accused (like Article 21) were being violated by unnecessary arrest?
🔷 Relevant IPC Sections
Section 153A IPC: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc.
Section 505 IPC: Statements conducing to public mischief.
These are non-bailable and cognizable offences.
🔷 Why the Court Granted Bail: Judicial Reasoning
✅ 1. No Direct Evidence Against Upadhyay
The Court noted that no evidence showed Ashwini Upadhyay himself raised any objectionable slogans.
He had left the site before the sloganeering began.
Presence at the event was not enough to assume criminal intent or participation.
✅ 2. No Need for Custodial Interrogation
The Court found that investigation did not require his custodial interrogation.
He had cooperated with the investigation and was not a flight risk.
✅ 3. Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception
The Court relied on the constitutional principle under Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
Detaining someone without sufficient justification violates fundamental rights.
✅ 4. No Prima Facie Case for Inciting Hatred
Mere organization of an event without direct participation in illegal acts does not make a person criminally liable under Sections 153A or 505 IPC.
🔷 Important Case Laws Supporting Bail
1. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – Supreme Court
The Court held that arrest is not mandatory in all cases, especially where the offence is punishable with less than 7 years. Police must record reasons for arrest.
➡️ Applied here: Police arrested Upadhyay without examining if custodial interrogation was essential.
2. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) – Supreme Court
A landmark case on bail jurisprudence. The SC held that bail should not be denied as a matter of punishment and must be based on reasonable grounds.
➡️ Applied here: No criminal antecedents or misuse of liberty shown.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) – Supreme Court
Arbitrary arrests violate Article 21. Arrest should only be made when justified by necessity, not to humiliate or harass.
➡️ Applied here: Arrest without necessity goes against individual liberty.
4. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011) – Supreme Court
Bail should be granted if trial is likely to take long and accused is not a flight risk.
➡️ Applied here: No urgency or risk in releasing him on bail.
🔷 Conditions Imposed (Typical in Such Cases)
While granting bail, courts often impose conditions like:
Not influencing witnesses.
Cooperating with investigation.
Not leaving jurisdiction without permission.
It is likely similar standard conditions were imposed on Upadhyay.
🔷 Conclusion: Why the Delhi Court Was Right
The Delhi Court rightly granted bail to Ashwini Upadhyay based on:
Lack of direct involvement in alleged sloganeering.
No justification for custodial interrogation.
Well-established legal precedents protecting individual liberty.
Principles of natural justice and presumption of innocence.
This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting civil liberties, ensuring that bail is not denied merely to satisfy public outrage, and that criminal law is not misused to target individuals without proof.
RELATED Blog
0 comments