Kochi: The Kerala High Court granted Aisha Sultana, a filmmaker, and activist charged with sedition, anticipatory bail on Friday, for her claimed statements that the central government had deployed Covid-19 as a ‘bio-weapon’ against the islanders.
The lawsuit was launched earlier this month in response to a complaint submitted by BJP Lakshadweep president C Abdul Khader Haji, who claimed that during a debate on a Malayalam news channel regarding the ongoing political situation in Lakshadweep, Sultana attacked the Centre and termed Patel a ‘bioweapon.’
Aisha Sultana’s lawyer, Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, argued that she is innocent and that the charges of sedition and inciting discord among groups of people are completely untrue and unsupportable. She had no aim of inciting dissent against the Indian government.
The court noted that Aisha Sultana had expressed her regret about the use of the words ‘bio weapon’. Custodial interrogation and jail may not be necessary, especially in these epidemic times.
The prosecution has also indicated no concern about her eluding justice or refusing to cooperate with the inquiry, the court added. Nor has the prosecution expressed its intention to subject her to custodial interrogation. There is no way to tamper with the evidence in the case, and there is minimal chance of witnesses being persuaded or intimidated.
The petitioner was ordered to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation after the court granted temporary anticipatory bail on June 17, and there has been no information that she has failed to do so, the court said.
As a result, the court decided that the temporary anticipatory bail should be rendered unconditional. If she is arrested, she should be freed on bail after posting a Rs 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties each for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
The court stated that committing certain activities that will bring the Government constituted by law in India into hate or contempt is the key component for establishing the offence of sedition under section 124-A IPC. There was no indication that she acted in any way against the Indian government.
She has vowed loyalty to the people of Lakshadweep and has solely objected against the Administrator’s newly implemented policies. Her remark does not appear to include any imputations or claims that are harmful to the national interest, nor does it advocate for one group of people over another. As a result, the court expressed uncertainty that the criminal penalties of section 153-A would apply in this case.
Post Your Comments