A local court has chastised Delhi Police for failing to question a YouTube news channel reporter who was seen deliberately putting up leading questions in order to incite people in connection with alleged communal slogans raised at Jantar Mantar.
Pinki Chaudhary, the president of Hindu Raksha Dal who is being investigated in the case, was quoted as saying that police were relying on an interview he gave to a YouTube channel.
The investigating officer (IO) presented the court with a transcript of the 11-minute video of Chaudhary at Jantar Mantar. Anil Antil, an additional sessions judge, reserved his decision on Chaudhary's anticipatory bail application and extended his interim protection from arrest until Saturday.
On behalf of Chaudhary, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain argued that police were going beyond the FIR and that the alleged video featuring the interview was added later to the case.
The judge inquired of the officers, "Have you served notice on the reporter?" He is seen purposefully posing leading questions. To incite them, agitate him, and get him to say something. He's attempting to incite them. He had to be the first person to be called.
When the court asked Jain if the words uttered by Chaudhary in the video were his client's, he replied, "His (Chaudhary's) intention was not violence... He wrote the words. The video should be watched in its entirety. If you watch the entire video, you will see that he is not guilty.
Jain claimed that Chaudhary was not named in the FIR, that he did not raise any communal slogans, and that he was not present at the time the alleged hate speech was delivered. The IO attempted to strengthen his case. He is watching an interview that was given to a news channel. Police are going above and beyond the FIR, he said.
Despite what was allegedly said in the video, the advocate told the court that a case under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Section 153(A) promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony was not made out.
S K Kain, an additional public prosecutor, opposed the anticipatory bail plea, claiming that the interview clearly promoted animosity between religions. The accused is inciting two groups of people. This is against the law, he stated.
