After the Supreme Court on Wednesday invalidated his arrest, a Delhi court granted bail to NewsClick founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha in a case where he is alleged to have received money for carrying out pro-China propaganda.
The Patiala House Court, while directing that bail bonds worth ₹1 lakh be furnished, also set three main conditions for Purkayastha: he shall not contact the witnesses and approvers in the case, he shall not talk about the merits of the case and he shall not travel abroad without the court’s permission.
Purkayastha was arrested around 6.30 am October 3, 2023, by Delhi Police’s Special Cell under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court ordered Purkayastha’s release, noting that the police had failed to inform him of the grounds of his arrest before taking him into custody.
The FIR against Purkayastha mentioned offences under UAPA sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for terrorist acts), 18 (conspiracy) and 22C (offences by companies, trusts) as well as Indian Penal Code sections 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh had earlier requested the court to set the condition that Purkayastha shall contact no one “reflected” in the chargesheet. However, he later decided not to press for it.
Purkayastha’s counsel, Arshdeep Singh, then asked, “Can he speak to his lawyer?” The question left everyone in the courtroom chuckling. Further, he said that the name of Githa Hariharan, Purkayastha’s partner, was also in the chargesheet.
As the special public prosecutor told the court that there was only one approver in the case, NewsClick human resources head Amit Chakraborty, advocate Arshdeep quipped, “…. Abhi tak to ek hi hai. Aage pata nahi kis kis ko banayenge (There is only one as of now. Let us see who else they rope in).”
Purkayastha’s case before the Supreme Court was that on October 4, 2023, without any prior notice, he was taken to the residence of a special judge at 6.30 am for a remand hearing. His lawyers claimed that they were informed about the proceedings over a phone call around 7 am on Purkayastha’s insistence.
In pleadings before the Delhi High Court, Purkayastha had said that an unsigned copy of the remand application was sent by WhatsApp to his lawyers without mentioning the time or the grounds of the arrest.
As reported by The Indian Express, official records show that the remand order was signed at 6 am, which is even before Purkayastha was produced before the judge or his lawyers were informed.