The Crossbill Team
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (December 11), granted protection from arrest to human rights activist Nadeem Khan in a case alleging the promotion of enmity and criminal conspiracy.
Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the Delhi Police to provide a seven-day written notice if they intend to take Khan into custody, Bar and Bench reported.
The police assured the court that Khan would not be arrested and agreed to issue prior notice if custodial interrogation became necessary. The court also restricted Khan, the national secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), from leaving the Delhi-NCR region without its permission.
Khan had filed two petitions seeking to quash the investigation and dismiss the FIR against him. The FIR alleges offences such as promoting enmity, disrupting public harmony, public mischief, and criminal conspiracy.
A non-bailable warrant issued against him was also quashed, given his cooperation with the investigation, according to the report.
Earlier, Khan had received interim protection from arrest. During the hearing, his legal counsel, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the investigation was a "roving inquiry" and should not serve as a means to harass him.
Sibal also opposed the police's request to examine Khan's phone.
Justice Singh acknowledged these concerns but emphasized the police’s right to conduct an investigation.
“They are entitled to investigate. They are investigating. Your right to liberty is protected, you are not being arrested,” he stated, as per Bar and Bench.
The FIR against Khan was lodged by Delhi police following allegations made by Hindutva supporters on social media. This was soon followed by a raid on APCR’s Delhi office on November 29, and an attempt to detain Khan at his brother’s residence in Bengaluru the next day.
The case reportedly revolves around a video shared on social media that the police claim portrays a specific community as victims and incites unrest.
Khan, however, maintains that the video addresses issues like minority rights, hate speech, and discrimination, asserting that it is protected under his right to free speech.
Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the Delhi Police to provide a seven-day written notice if they intend to take Khan into custody, Bar and Bench reported.
The police assured the court that Khan would not be arrested and agreed to issue prior notice if custodial interrogation became necessary. The court also restricted Khan, the national secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), from leaving the Delhi-NCR region without its permission.
Khan had filed two petitions seeking to quash the investigation and dismiss the FIR against him. The FIR alleges offences such as promoting enmity, disrupting public harmony, public mischief, and criminal conspiracy.
A non-bailable warrant issued against him was also quashed, given his cooperation with the investigation, according to the report.
Earlier, Khan had received interim protection from arrest. During the hearing, his legal counsel, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the investigation was a "roving inquiry" and should not serve as a means to harass him.
Sibal also opposed the police's request to examine Khan's phone.
Justice Singh acknowledged these concerns but emphasized the police’s right to conduct an investigation.
“They are entitled to investigate. They are investigating. Your right to liberty is protected, you are not being arrested,” he stated, as per Bar and Bench.
The FIR against Khan was lodged by Delhi police following allegations made by Hindutva supporters on social media. This was soon followed by a raid on APCR’s Delhi office on November 29, and an attempt to detain Khan at his brother’s residence in Bengaluru the next day.
The case reportedly revolves around a video shared on social media that the police claim portrays a specific community as victims and incites unrest.
Khan, however, maintains that the video addresses issues like minority rights, hate speech, and discrimination, asserting that it is protected under his right to free speech.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment