Noida workers who protested for better pay jailed for weeks, rescued by courts

On April 14, the Uttar Pradesh government raised the wages but it took the courts to grant relief to most of the jailed protesters.

The Indian Express investigated 106 arrests with substantive allegations, ranging from rioting and arson to attempt to murder — the average period a protester spent in custody was 53 days. These arrests led to 222 bail orders linked to seven FIRs.

AI-generated image

The investigation revealed that relief was granted in as many as 188, or 84 per cent.

However, the orders had a consistent pattern. Judges repeatedly found that the police case rests on treating a crowd as the accused, rather than establishing what any one worker actually did.

Three gaps were flagged by the court in the bail orders: mere presence at a protest is not evidence to deny bail; lack of specific evidence outweighs gravity of charges; ordinary workers at the protest cannot be equated with those found organising or instigating violence.

Bail was repeatedly declined where the prosecution placed prima facie material suggesting the accused had organised or mobilised the protests, coordinated WhatsApp groups to secure participation, acted as conspirators, instigated others to join the agitation, or were directly linked to specific acts, such as arson.

19-year-old says stepped out for food, was arrested (Express photo)

The Indian Express emailed a questionnaire detailing these findings to Laxmi Singh, Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida). She was unavailable for comment. Senior police officers linked to the investigation declined comment.

What the courts found

An investigation of 222 bail orders by sessions courts and the Allahabad High Court show how each case was tested against evidence placed on record:

1. FIR No. 149/2026, police station: Noida Phase III

31 granted bail, 6 denied: ‘Mere joining the crowd is not evidence of intent’

Allegation: On April 13, around 300-400 accused entered the premises of M K Electronics in Sector 67 carrying lathis, sticks, bricks, stones and “deadly weapons”, raised slogans, hurled abuses and extended “threats to kill”. The accused, with a common intention, committed rioting, criminally trespassed into the company’s premises, and assaulted the complainant and employees with intent to cause death.

What sessions court said: Granting bail, after evidence showed they were company employees, the court said: “The mere fact that he was part of the crowd cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that he possessed the same grave criminal intent.” It found that the prosecution had described the crowd’s acts “in a collective manner without specifying the individual roles”. In 14 cases, bail was granted by the High Court.

Bail was denied by the sessions court to six accused who had no direct employer-employee relationship with the company, with the court noting that the “accused can influence the witnesses” and flagging “the likelihood of an adverse message being conveyed to society”.

This 20-year-old said he was picked up from the lane outside home. (Express photo)

2. FIR No. 151/2026, police station: Noida Phase III

37 granted bail: ‘No visual evidence to back serious accusation’

Allegation: On April 13, the accused allegedly “pelted stones” at owners of various companies and their employees who were at work, with the intention of “causing their death”. They allegedly entered the premises unlawfully, armed with “deadly weapons”, including lathis, sticks, bricks and stones, and caused extensive damage by vandalising security gates, CCTV cameras, glass structures and office property.

The prosecution relied on an “informant’s statement”, “inspection of the place of occurrence” and “CCTV footage”.

What sessions court said: Granting bail, it noted: “…no such CCTV footage or electronic record has been placed on the record which depicts or captures the accused indulging in any violent activities.”

3: FIR No. 163/2026, police station: Noida Phase II

3 granted bail, 10 denied: ‘Conspiracy stood in way of bail’

Allegation: Protests by workers of Paramount Exports, Anubhav Apparels and Richa Global between April 10 and 11 were organised with the objective of staging a violent, aggressive agitation to pressure the state into meeting “unlawful, unconstitutional and inappropriate demands”.

What sessions court said: With the chargesheet filed, bail was granted to three accused who had “remained in judicial custody for a long period of time”, with no further evidence collection pending.

Ten were denied bail over prima facie allegations of an active conspiratorial role, including claims that they had created WhatsApp groups in the names of companies to mobilise workers, and that banners, posters and pamphlets related to the movement had been recovered from their residences.

4: FIR No. 165/2026, police station: Noida Phase II

29 granted bail, 6 denied: ‘No evidence to back accusations’

Allegation: About 450-500 workers assembled at Sector 84 and other locations on April 13 to protest over wages, overtime and bonuses. The protest, which ran from around 8.30 am to 9.30 pm, turned violent as protesters attacked police with lathis and stones, damaged government and private vehicles, set some ablaze, and blocked public roads.

The prosecution cited independent witnesses, including a “water vendor, a chowmein cart owner, and a rickshaw-puller”, and a police witness.

What sessions court said: Granting bail, the court found it was “not clear” how eyewitnesses were “previously acquainted” with, or able to identify, the accused, and that no CCTV footage, video or photographs placed the accused at the scene. “No material has been placed on record showing any specific and active role of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences,” the court said.

In one order, it noted: “…the case pertains to a labour agitation. The presence of the accused at the labourers’ protest is not unnatural.” In six cases, bail was granted by the High Court.

Bail was denied to seven others described by the prosecution as “conspirators”.

5. FIR No. 169/2026, police station: Noida Phase II

26 granted bail, 1 denied: ‘No explanation for FIR delay’

Allegation: Employees of Richa Global allegedly staged protests from April 10 in support of wage demands, unlawfully blocking the garment exporter’s gates, restraining employees from entering, and disrupting operations, with threats to resort to “vandalism and arson”.

Similar incidents were alleged on April 11 and 13, with workers said to have been added to WhatsApp groups and instigated by “outsiders”. The prosecution said one accused was apprehended at the spot despite “not being an employee of the company”.

What sessions court said: Granting bail to 21, the court noted that the FIR was lodged nearly “ten days” after the alleged incident and that several accused were “not named therein”, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. “The FIR alleges wrongful confinement, vandalism and threats of arson, but does not reflect any actual incident of arson or injuries,” it said. In six cases, bail was granted by the High Court.

Bail was denied to one accused against whom the prosecution placed CCTV footage and other material establishing a specific role.

6. FIR No. 172/2026, police station: Noida Phase I

21 granted bail, 7 denied: ‘Mere presence in crowd not enough’

Allegation: Workers of an auto components manufacturer blocked a public road, damaged government and company property, and pelted stones at police personnel, injuring several officials, while raising demands for higher wages and additional days off, creating an “atmosphere of fear and unrest”.

What sessions court said: Granting bail to 21, the court held that the “only allegation” was that the accused “were present in the protesting crowd”. “It appears that he was part of a protest concerning the interests of workers,” the court observed in one order. The role of every person in the crowd “cannot be treated the same”, it said. “Mere presence in a crowd does not, by itself, make every accused equally liable, specially when no specific act has been attributed to the accused,” the court said. In seven cases, bail was granted by the High Court.

7. FIR No. 164/2026, police station: Noida Phase II

41 granted bail, 4 denied: HC raised bar on evidence and parity

A majority of bail applications linked to this FIR (39 of 41) were granted by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court adopted a broad standard, granting bail on the basis of “facts and circumstances of the case”, “evidence on record”, and grounds of parity.

What triggered protests: Rising costs, Haryana wage hike

The April protests in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, part of the National Capital Region, were triggered mainly by three factors: rising LPG cylinder prices amid the West Asia crisis, WhatsApp rumours in late March that new Labour Codes would raise minimum wages, and wage-hike protests in Haryana’s Manesar.

⠀

Workers cited a rising economic burden, black-market LPG prices, unrealistic work targets, and no social security benefits such as provident fund. Most were hired temporarily through contractors. They said they were officially on eight-hour shifts but routinely worked 10-12 hours with few breaks. Safety, especially for women, was another concern.

Hike in wages

In Haryana, after the Manesar protests, the state government announced a 35% hike in minimum monthly wages on April 9, backdated to April 1 — Rs 15,220.71 for unskilled workers and Rs 19,425.85 for highly skilled workers.

This intensified the Noida protests, which turned violent as workers and activists took to the streets. Calm returned after UP announced its own interim wage hike on April 14 — from Rs 11,313 to Rs 13,690 for unskilled workers, and from Rs 13,940 to Rs 16,868 for skilled workers in Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida) and Ghaziabad. Authorities in Noida also warned contractors that complaints against them would be dealt with harshly. ENS Economic Bureau

⠀