AI Summit protest: Court to hear bail pleas of Sharma, Kumar on Sat

A Delhi court will hear police arguments on March 14 regarding anticipatory bail pleas for Manish Sharma and Rajeev Kumar in the AI Summit protest case. The defence called it a political case, while police claim Sharma is a key conspirator.

The Patiala House Court on Thursday listed for hearing on March 14, the arguments of Delhi Police on anticipatory bail pleas of Manish Sharma and Rajeev Kumar in the case of the protest that took place on February 20 during the AI Impact Summit in the national capital.

The court listed the matter for hearing the Delhi police's arguments on Saturday at 2 PM.

Police Allege Conspiracy

Delhi police have alleged that Manish Sharma was the key conspirator behind the planning of the 'shirtless' protest at the AI Impact Summit at Bharat Mandapam on February 20. A Non-Bailable Warrant has also been issued against him.

Defence Argues 'Political Case'

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amit Bansal heard the arguments by senior advocates Ramesh Gupta, Rebecca John, assisted by Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, Chitwan Godara for Manish Sharma, and Advocate Amrish Ranjan, Ekta Bhasin appeared for Rajeev Kumar.

During the hearing, senior police officers like Sanjeev Yadav, P S Kushwaha, DCP crime and other officers from the crime branch were present.

Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta argued that it is a political case made by the police. "It was a protest by the accused persons. Accused who were present at the protest have been granted bail," he said.

He further submitted that "prior to 2014, leaders were also doing the same thing." He mentioned and produced a picture of a protest against the alleged corruption in the Commonwealth Games in which a senior leader of Haryana participated shirtless. "Was this not against the country and has not defamed the country?" the advocate questioned.

He further submitted that Manish Sharma was not present at the protest. Police has alleged that he was a key conspirator and had a role in planning, providing logistic etc. Police have every evidence against him. Now, why police want his custodial interrogation?

Senior advocate also raised a question on the working of the police. He said that the police got the application transferred to this court after the issuance of notice by another court. ASJ Bansal said, "I can transfer this case if you have an objection." Senior advocate replied that he has no objection if this court hears the application. He said that he is "just showing the conduct of the Delhi police. They didn't even give a copy of the FIR."

Senior advocate Gupta argued that all the alleged offences are punishable for less than 5 years. "What does the police want to ask Manish Sharma? They got a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) after the issuance of notice on this application on March 7. What's this? Is this an FIR to oppose the anticipatory bail application?" Gupta questioned

Prosecution Opposes Bail Pleas

On the other hand, ASG D P Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastav and Prashant Prakash appeared for the Delhi police and opposed the anticipatory bail pleas.

Heated Exchange in Court

ASG DP argued that Manish Sharma is incharge of the Indian Youth Congress and his custody is required to confront and to know if other persons are involved in this case. At that point, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta opposed the contention of Delhi Police and questioned, "Is the Indian Youth Congress a banned organisation? Is this a crime, being a member of the Indian Youth Congress?"

This ensued a heated argument between Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta and ASG D P Singh. After the situation pacified, the court adjourned the hearing till Saturday to hear arguments of the Delhi Police. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)