Journalist Siddique Kappan denied bail by Allahabad High Court in UAPA case

By Express News Service

LUCKNOW: The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea of Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan, who was arrested together with three others in October 2020 whereas on his technique to Hathras after the alleged gang-rape and homicide of a 19-year-old Dalit woman. Kappan and his associates had been booked beneath Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

The bail plea of the journalist was rejected by the one choose bench comprising Justice Krishan Pahal who had reserved the order after the arguments had been concluded by accused and state counsels on August 2.

A Mathura court docket had rejected Kappan’s bail plea after which he had approached the High Court.

Justice Pahal attributed the rejection of bail plea to a prima facie case being established by the prosecution. The choose stated travelling with co-accused who didn’t belong to the media fraternity in addition to tainted cash being utilized by him and his accomplices had been essential circumstances going in opposition to him.

“The tainted money being used by the applicant and his colleagues cannot be ruled out,” stated the single-judge. The Court additionally rejected Kappan’s declare that he was visiting Hathras to fulfil his journalistic obligation by saying that it was nullified by the claims made by the prosecution within the cost sheet.

ALSO READ | India tops checklist of countries looking for blocking tweets by journalists, information corporations: Twitter report

The prosecution’s allegations had been that Kappan and the co-accused had been travelling to Hathras with an intention to disturb concord within the space. It was said that they had been accumulating funds to run a web site filled with misinformation and to incite violence.

They had been charged beneath Sections 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Section 124A (sedition), Section 153A (selling enmity between totally different teams on floor of faith) and Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts supposed to outrage non secular emotions) of the Indian Penal Code, together with Sections 65, 72 and 75 of the Information Technology Act.

However, Kappan’s counsel denied all allegations, stating that he was going to Hathras to discharge his obligation as an expert journalist, when he was illegally detained by the UP Police in violation of his elementary rights.

Additionally, it was said that Kappan by no means used any platform to unfold disharmony or additional class or communal battle. On the opposite, the prosecution argued that Kappan, a resident of Kerala, had nothing to do with Hathras incident and was there with mala fide intent. It was additionally submitted by the prosecution that Kappan had carried out a secret workshop with an purpose to incite riots throughout the nation by raking up problems with Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Babri Masjid demolition.

While rejecting the bail plea, the Court stated that owing to the character of the offence, the proof on document, and contemplating the complicity of the accused and the severity of the punishment, the Court discovered Kappan’s bail software to be devoid of advantage, and dismissed it.

LUCKNOW: The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea of Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan, who was arrested together with three others in October 2020 whereas on his technique to Hathras after the alleged gang-rape and homicide of a 19-year-old Dalit woman. Kappan and his associates had been booked beneath Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

The bail plea of the journalist was rejected by the one choose bench comprising Justice Krishan Pahal who had reserved the order after the arguments had been concluded by accused and state counsels on August 2.

A Mathura court docket had rejected Kappan’s bail plea after which he had approached the High Court.

Justice Pahal attributed the rejection of bail plea to a prima facie case being established by the prosecution. The choose stated travelling with co-accused who didn’t belong to the media fraternity in addition to tainted cash being utilized by him and his accomplices had been essential circumstances going in opposition to him.

“The tainted money being used by the applicant and his colleagues cannot be ruled out,” stated the single-judge. The Court additionally rejected Kappan’s declare that he was visiting Hathras to fulfil his journalistic obligation by saying that it was nullified by the claims made by the prosecution within the cost sheet.

ALSO READ | India tops checklist of countries looking for blocking tweets by journalists, information corporations: Twitter report

The prosecution’s allegations had been that Kappan and the co-accused had been travelling to Hathras with an intention to disturb concord within the space. It was said that they had been accumulating funds to run a web site filled with misinformation and to incite violence.

They had been charged beneath Sections 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Section 124A (sedition), Section 153A (selling enmity between totally different teams on floor of faith) and Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts supposed to outrage non secular emotions) of the Indian Penal Code, together with Sections 65, 72 and 75 of the Information Technology Act.

However, Kappan’s counsel denied all allegations, stating that he was going to Hathras to discharge his obligation as an expert journalist, when he was illegally detained by the UP Police in violation of his elementary rights.

Additionally, it was said that Kappan by no means used any platform to unfold disharmony or additional class or communal battle. On the opposite, the prosecution argued that Kappan, a resident of Kerala, had nothing to do with Hathras incident and was there with mala fide intent. It was additionally submitted by the prosecution that Kappan had carried out a secret workshop with an purpose to incite riots throughout the nation by raking up problems with Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Babri Masjid demolition.

While rejecting the bail plea, the Court stated that owing to the character of the offence, the proof on document, and contemplating the complicity of the accused and the severity of the punishment, the Court discovered Kappan’s bail software to be devoid of advantage, and dismissed it.