HC grants transit bail to environment activist in Farmers’ protest toolkit case

The Goa bench of Bombay High Court granted transit bail to environmentalist Subham Kar Chaudhuri after a case was registered against him relate to the farmers’ protests toolkit. The court remarked that it would be ‘in interest of justice’ to allow transit bail to the applicant so that he could reach competent authority for appropriate relief.

The applicant moved to the court seeking anticipatory transit bail apprehending arrest after FIR was registered against him by the cyber crime cell of Delhi police for offences under section 124A, 153A and 120B of the IPC regarding the toolkit case. The applicant submitted that he was an environmentalist volunteering for an organization named “extinction rebellion” and he was residing in Goa. The applicant further added that he was a law-abiding citizen without any criminal background. The counsel for applicant contended that Nikita Jacob, Shantanu Muluk and Disha Ravi had allegedly conspired and created the online ‘toolkit’ and the appellant was falsely implicated in the case since he had no connection to the alleged ‘toolkit’. 

He counsel brought to the court’s notice that Nikita Jacob and Shantanu Muluk were granted transit anticipatory bail from the Bombay high court and Disha Ravi was also granted bail by the Delhi sessions Court and prayed that the applicant be granted the relief of transit anticipatory bail.

The single judge bench of Justice MS Jawalkar observed that given the facts and circumstances, the apprehension for arrest was justified. The court noted that since the FIR was registered in Delhi application for regular anticipatory bail would be considered by the competent court in Delhi. The court found that the applicant was entitled for the relief and remarked “in the interest of justice, without going into the merits of the matter, just to enable the applicant to approach the competent authority for seeking appropriate relief, the applicant is granted the relief as prayed.”

Thus the court granted the applicant protection of 10 days so that the applicant may reach competent authority seeking appropriate relief.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close