The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to the founder of the online portal NewsClick, Prabir Purkayastha, who was arrested in October 2023 under the stringent Anti-Terrorism Act (UAPA) for allegedly receiving money from Chinese companies. provided the reasons for the arrest and a copy of the arrest warrant.
“We have no hesitation in concluding that a copy of the remand request and the reasons for remand were not given to the accused or his counsel, who are in jail,” said BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The court referred to the Pankaj Bansal case of Oct 2023 while granting the release, in which the Supreme Court said that an arrest is void if the accused is not informed in writing of the reasons. “The arrest and detention shall be deemed null and void.” The court added that Purkayastha will be released on bail, which will be decided in cases as a charge sheet has been filed in the case.
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju pleaded with the court that the verdict should not prevent the police from re-arresting Purkayastha on serious charges.
The court said that it did not say anything on the matter and whatever the police are allowed to do legally, they are allowed to do.
When was Purkayastha arrested?
Purkayastha, who was arrested in October 2023, denied the illegality of the arrest because he was kept in the dark about its reasons. He said the decision to jail him was made without his lawyers contesting the case.
On October 13, the Delhi High Court rejected Purkayastha’s bail plea. Purkayastha is accused of receiving money through Chinese companies to threaten the stability and integrity of the country.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appears in Purkayastha. along with lawyer Nitin Saluja cited the Pankaj Bansal case where the judgment was delivered on the day of the arrest of the founder of NewClick. Pankaj Bansal’s decision was related to alleged money laundering.
The court asked Raju, “Can a custodial sentence be imposed without informing the accused about the reasons for arrest?” This came after the police argued that the charges against the petitioner were serious and affected national security and that the arrest should not be quashed on a technicality.
