New Delhi: Saying that the prosecution did not object to the release of Newsclick‘s HR head Amit Chakraborty and considering his medical condition, the Delhi high court ordered on Monday (May 6) that Chakraborty be released upon furnishing a Rs 25,000 bond.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the prosecution had already obtained Chakraborty’s statement under provisions of the Criminal Code of Procedure.
She also said Chakraborty was dependent on a wheelchair and said his medical condition “warrants special consideration and calls for a humane and understanding approach to his situation”.
“In cases where an individual’s physical disability significantly affects his well-being and daily functioning, the court must acknowledge its responsibility to intervene judiciously and consider the possibility of relief or release from custody if the same is permissible under law,” the judge added.
Newsclick‘s founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested in October last year in a Delhi police special cell case where the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been invoked.
Police acted on a New York Times story which claimed that Newsclick received Chinese funding to criticise the Indian government’s policies and promote Chinese propaganda.
The portal has denied these allegations and said in court that they did not receive any money at all from China.
But Chakraborty asked to become an ‘approver’ – or a government witness – in the case in December as well as for a pardon. His application was allowed in January and he was pardoned in the case.
Purkayastha remains in custody and the Delhi police filed a supplementary chargesheet in the case, alleging – among other things – that he sent his employees to incite Muslims to commit violence during the CAA protests, that he and Chakraborty were funded by the Chinese Communist Party and that Chakraborty physically handed funds to Kashmiris on Purkayastha’s behalf in order to aid terrorists.
Newsclick has denied the allegations, saying it will contest them in court in due time.
Last month, the Supreme Court pulled up the Delhi Police for the manner in which it arrested Purkayastha, asking it in what “hot haste” it produced Purkayastha before a magistrate at 6 am the day after his arrest.
The court also expressed surprise over the fact that the remand order was passed before the remand application was served on Purkayastha’s lawyer.
