The Patiala House court denied bail to AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair on 2 July and remanded him to a 14-day judicial custody. He was produced in the court on Saturday morning, after the completion of his four-day police remand.
Denying bail, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Snigdha Savaria said that investigation in Zubair’s case was its at initial stage and as per prosecution, there was a likely that police custody would be required.
As per LiveLaw, the court said that they cannot decide on the issue of sealing of electronic devices. This is because the investigation pertaining to the data and devices that were seized during the execution of search warrants was still being looked into.
In response to Zubair's counsel's argument that the tweet for which he was booked is a screenshot of a Hindi film, the court said that the plea was of no help to Zubair as sections of FCRA had also been invoked against him.
Earlier in the day, before the court order was pronounced, Delhi DCP KPS Malhotra had told the media that the court had Zubair's bail plea and granted the Delhi Police 14-day judicial custody of the jailed journalist.
"I had a word with my IO, I misheard it due to noise and inadvertently the message was posted in the broadcast," DCP Malhotra explained after Zubair's lawyer, Soutik Banerjee, denied the news of the court denying bail to him.
“It is extremely scandalous and speaks volume of rule of law in country that even before judge has sat, police has leaked to media," Banerjee told the media.
Delhi Police Adds New Charges to FIR Against Zubair
The Delhi Police has alleged conspiracy and the destruction of evidence in the case over an allegedly objectionable tweet by and also claimed that he received donations from foreign countries, news agency ANI reported on Saturday.
Accordingly, Delhi Police have added three new Sections – 201 (for the destruction of evidence), 120-(B) (for criminal conspiracy) of IPC, and Section 35 in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, to the FIR against Zubair.
What Happened in Court on Saturday?
Atul Shrivastava, who has been appointed as the special public prosecutor for Delhi Police, on Saturday asked for judicial custody, stating that Zubair has not cooperated in the investigation.
Appearing for Zubair, advocate Vrinda Grover told the court that the phone that they have seized is not from the time when the tweets are. Grover also added that a copy of the remand application has not been provided to them, LiveLaw reported.
Shrivastava sought 14 days judicial custody, reacting to which Grover said that they would be filing a bail plea for Zubair.
Appearing for the accused, Grover moved a bail application before the court on the ground that her client was not required for the investigation any further and said “I (Zubair) am not some terrorist that they need to secure my presence.”
Grover opposed the police plea seeking judicial custody and said, “We are not living in police state. Till they demonstrate a prima facie case, if it's made out, I'll submit to law. But if they don't, it's not a police state.”
The Case Against Zubair
Zubair was arrested on Monday, in connection with a case registered against him for a tweet from 2018, and remanded by the duty magistrate to one-day police custody. On Tuesday, Delhi's Patiala House court extended the police remand by four days.
The charges against Zubair presently are Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The tweet for which Zubair has been booked in this case carries a picture of the signboard of a hotel visibly changed from 'Honeymoon Hotel' to 'Hanuman Hotel.' It is accompanied by the text: “BEFORE 2014: Honeymoon Hotel. After 2014: Hanuman Hotel.”
The picture, however, is a screenshot of a scene from a 1985 comedy film Kissi Se Na Kehna.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice on Zubair's Plea
On Friday, the Delhi High Court had issued notice on a petition filed by Zubair challenging the four-day police custody remand against him.
Further, the high court sought for the counter-affidavit to be filed within two weeks, the rejoinder to be filed within one week, and the matter to be listed before the roster bench on 27 July.
According to LiveLaw, the court also said that the ongoing proceedings before the magistrate would be without prejudice to the contentions expressed by the parties and the pendency of the matter before the high court.
(With inputs from ANI and LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)