The Supreme Court on August 29 listed a plea for bail filed by Kerala journalist Sidhique Kappan, who is accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and has spent two years in jail, for final disposal on September 9.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice U. U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh and directed it to file a counter to the bail plea by Mr. Kappan.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave and advocate Haris Beeran, all for Mr. Kappan, submitted that he had been incarcerated since October 6, 2020.
Mr. Sibal argued that his client was charged under UAPA on the ground that an amount of ₹45,000 was deposited with him by the Popular Front of India (PFI) for "terrorist activities". "PFI is not a terror organisation. There is no evidence on who deposited the money. This is only a blank allegation," Mr. Sibal argued.
He said Mr. Kappan has "nothing to do with PFI". He had only previously worked as a journalist for a paper said to be associated with PFI.
The petition contended that Mr. Kappan has been incarcerated on “trumped-up charges” merely due to his zest to discharge his professional duty to report on the “infamous case” of the alleged rape and murder of a Dalit girl at Hathras in Uttar Pradesh in 2020. He was picked up while enroute in a car to Hathras on October 5, 2020. "Who were the other persons with him in the car?" Chief Justice Lalit asked.
"One was the driver, who got bail. The other two were PFI activists, who are still in custody and challenging the charges against them," Mr. Sibal said.
Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Parshad countered that there were eight accused persons in the case. Only the driver has been released on bail. One of the accused is connected to the Delhi riots and the other to the Bulandshahr riots.
"Charge sheet has been filed way back. One was released on bail and he did not appear in court and a non bailable warrant was issued," Ms. Parshad submitted.
Mr. Sibal said the charge sheet is 5,000 pages long and only a few pages have been shared with the accused. The court asked the State government to note all their arguments in detail in their counter and gave the petitioner time to file a rejoinder before the next hearing.
