New Delhi: JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar has admitted his presence at the spot where anti-India slogans were raised but the “limited controversy” that needs to be probed was whether he was “actively participating” in alleged anti-national activities, the Delhi High Court today said.
Further, the court said Delhi Police Special Cell, which has taken over the investigation, has to ascertain whether Kanhaiya’s February 11 speech contained his original thoughts and faith in the Constitution and nationalist approach, or the speech was to create a “safety gear for himself” for the February 9 incident.
The court refrained from going into a detailed examination of the evidence relied upon by the police while dealing with the bail plea saying, “What was the role played by Kanhaiya on that day is subject matter of investigation and it is desirable at this stage to leave it to the investigating agency to unearth the truth.”
“The petitioner is President of JNU Students Union and actively involved in various activities carried out in the University. He admits his presence at the spot on the alleged date of occurrence. The photographs of the incidents placed on record have been filed to show his presence at the spot,” Justice Pratibha Rani said.
“The limited controversy as on date is whether the petitioner was actively participating in the alleged anti- national activities on that day or he was present there only to intervene between two rival factions of the students,” the court said.
It further said that at this stage while deciding the bail plea, it would be necessary to refer to available materials, including FIR, status report, 30 slogans as well as various photographs of the event.
“The FIR in this case has been registered only about three weeks back. The investigation has now been transferred to the Special Cell of Delhi Police.
“At this stage, a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering question of bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination for satisfying about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary,” the judge said.