A sessions court in Noida has granted conditional bail to a factory worker nearly a month after his arrest in connection with the industrial workers' protest that took place on April 13. The court held that the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence at this stage to justify his continued detention.
Court's Observations
Granting relief, Judge Somprabha Mishra stated that there was no material before the court to indicate that Rohit Kumar (24) was part of the mob or had any specific active role in the violence that erupted during the protest. The judge noted, "The prosecution states that the accused's involvement was established during investigation based on statements from the plaintiff, site inspections, and CCTV footage. However, no CCTV footage or electronic prints documenting the accused's violent activities have been presented so far."
Bail Conditions
Kumar, who was arrested on May 11, was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with a surety of the same amount and an undertaking for his release. The court also directed him to cooperate with the investigation and remain present in court on every hearing date. He was warned not to influence the complainant or prosecution witnesses and not to intimidate any witnesses.
Case Background
Kumar's case is linked to FIR number 151, which names 100-200 labourers accused of blocking traffic in sectors 64, 65, 67, 68, and 69, raising slogans, and allegedly carrying lethal weapons, sticks, bricks, and stones to vandalize property during the April 13 unrest.
Arguments of the Defense
Arguing for bail, Kumar's counsel contended that his client was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated. The lawyer claimed that police picked him up when he stepped out to buy medicine and sent him to jail. "He did not vandalize any company, nor was he present at the scene. There is no independent witness. He has no criminal history," the counsel argued.
Prosecution's Objections
The assistant district government counsel (criminal) opposed the bail application, stating that several firms were vandalized, causing substantial damage, and that multiple complaints had been received.
Court's Ruling
After hearing both sides, the court observed that the investigation was still ongoing and reiterated that no evidence had been produced so far to show Kumar's presence in the mob or an active role in the violence. The court noted, "The defense argues that the witness statements are not authentic as an employee of one company cannot be an eyewitness to incidents of vandalism in multiple companies. Therefore, the above facts and circumstances provide sufficient grounds for bail."
