The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to a 23-year-old law intern who had alleged that the ‘communal frenzy’ in Indore was preventing her from lodging bail applications in Madhya Pradesh courts.
A division bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M Trivedi was informed by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, who appeared on behalf of the State, that the Court may release the accused on bail.
The bench agreed and proceeded to release the accused.
“Petitioner number 2 will be released immediately after providing a bail bond satisfactory to a local magistrate. This order will be conveyed to the High Court’s Registrar. Respondent has been given two weeks to file a supplementary response, “the bench directed.
The petitioners, a practicing advocate and her law intern, approached the Court, claiming that a criminal accusation filed against them was unjustified.
The intern was booked after lawyers objected to her allegedly recording court proceedings of a bail hearing of a Bajrang Dal leader accused of vandalism during the screening of Bollywood film Pathaan.
She was allegedly frisked and beaten by a gang of thugs, and then detained at their request after they claimed she worked for banned organizations such as the Popular Front of India (PFI).
The first petitioner, an advocate, was forced to flee the city and go into hiding because she feared for her life and security.
The cops also posted a notice on her Indore home.
It was also claimed that Delhi lawyer Ehtesham Hashmi, who died recently, was tormented by the same communal groups that are hounding the petitioners.
According to the petition, Hashmi died of a heart attack as a result of the shock and anguish he had while fighting the Bajrang Dal leader’s release.
“The respondent state’s law and order machinery is completely broken. State officials appear to be either infected with the community virus or under pressure from communal groups,” the petition stated.
As a result, the petitioners requested that a High Court judge conduct an inquiry into the situation and that directives be given to the Madhya Pradesh government to protect their safety.
They also requested a stay of arrest for the first petitioner and a directive to release the second on bond, as well as the dismissal of the first information report (FIR) filed against them.
On March 17, the Court issued a notice to the Madhya Pradesh government in the case.
In their response, the MP government stated that there is no law and order situation in Indore, as claimed by the petitioners.
The State government stated that one of the petitioners’ bail applications had previously been filed and defended by a lawyer.
Relevantly, the State government argued that it was untrue that local police had to provide protection for counsel who had traveled to Delhi to challenge the bail petitions on their behalf.
