Jamia gunman, held for hate speech last month, gets bail

Gurgaon: Arrested for giving a hate speech at a mahapanchayat in Pataudi last month, a youth from Greater Noida – referred to as the Jamia gunman after he shot at Citizenship Amendment Act protesters outside the university in Delhi in January 2020 – got bail from a local court on Monday.
Additional sessions judge DN Bharadwaj granted bail after hearing arguments of both sides. Kulbhushan Bharadwaj, the counsel for the youth, argued that no notice was served to his client and cited a Supreme Court order – Arnesh Kumar vs state of Bihar -- to plead that bail can be granted soon after arrest in cases in which the maximum punishment is not more than 7 years (the sections against the youth, 153A and 295A, have lower punishment). “Police have been following this order in every other case,” said Bharadwaj, adding the sessions courts had on the orders of the high court issued directions to cops to strictly follow the apex court order in the Arnesh Kumar case.
The youth had called for attacks on the Muslim community at the mahapanchayat that was called to discuss “love jihad” and religious conversions, among other things. The mahapanchayat was held at the Ramleela Ground in Pataudi on July 4. A video clip of the youth’s speech was widely shared on social media, leading to calls for legal action against the gathering and the speakers there. “If they can abduct our sisters, why can’t we abduct theirs? From Pataudi, I want to warn people with a ‘terrorist mindset’ that if I can go to Jamia in support of CAA, Pataudi is not very far,” he had purportedly said.
He was arrested on July 12, the second time since January 2020 that he was taken into custody but this time under the adult justice system. He had faced the law as a juvenile after the Jamia firing on January 30. At that time, he was 17.
On July 16, when his plea had come up for hearing, judicial magistrate (first class) Mohammad Sageer had rejected bail, observing that the accused’s speech was “itself a form of violence” and such acts could not be “tolerated in any civilised society”. The court had also observed that the consequences of such activities may be “far more dangerous and may translate into communal violence”.