Bail denied to scribe held for Noida unrest, court says charges grave

Noida: A district court on Monday refused bail to journalist and translator Satyam Verma, arrested in connection with the April 13 unrest, holding that the case against him goes beyond a routine law and order breach.Rejecting the plea, the first additional sessions court of Sunil Kumar-1 said the material placed before it prima facie showed Verma’s involvement, and that the gravity of the allegations, their social impact and the risk of witnesses being influenced weighed against his release.Verma, a senior journalist known for translating Bhagat Singh’s works, is an accused in an FIR invoking multiple provisions of the BNS, besides provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, over alleged rioting, arson, criminal conspiracy, assault on public servants, unlawful assembly and destruction of property during the unrest.The prosecution told the court that hundreds of workers, demanding a rise in minimum wages, gathered at industrial units, forced open gates, damaged CCTV cameras, glass panels and other infrastructure. They also assaulted employees and police personnel, blocked roads, hurled stones and set vehicles on fire, the govt lawyer alleged.Opposing bail, the prosecution argued that the unrest was pre-planned and coordinated through WhatsApp and Telegram groups, where inflammatory messages were allegedly circulated to provoke workers. It also alleged foreign funding, including hawala transactions, and said Verma was linked to a media platform that live-streamed the violence, worsening the situation.The defence argued that Verma’s arrest violated constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 and provisions of the BNSS. It said he was not properly informed of the grounds of arrest and that procedures relating to arrest, seizure and medical examination were not followed.It also claimed he was nearly 600km away when the violence broke out and that the case rested largely on electronic material already in police custody. His continued detention was unwarranted given his age, diabetes and clean record, his lawyer argued.The court wasn’t convinced. “The evidence on record prima facie indicates involvement of the accused,” it said.It added that the seriousness of the offence and its possible societal impact militated against the bail plea, and observed that the possibility of influencing witnesses could not be ruled out at this stage.