NewsClick case: Delhi Court extends editor, HR's Judicial custody till February 17

The Delhi Police arrested founder Prabir Purkayastha and HR department head Amit Chakraborty on October 3 and remanded them to seven days of police custody on October 4.
NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha (L) and HR Head Amit Chakravarty being brought to the Lodhi Road Special Cell office, in New Delhi, on Oct. 3, 2023.
NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha (L) and HR Head Amit Chakravarty being brought to the Lodhi Road Special Cell office, in New Delhi, on Oct. 3, 2023.File photo | PTI

NEW DELHI: Patiala House Court on Monday extended till February 17 judicial custody of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and its HR head Amit Chakraborty in a case registered under the anti-terror law UAPA which is connected to the alleged “spreading” of pro-China propaganda by them.

Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur had allowed Chakraborty to turn into an approver in the matter, while Purkayastha is to remain an accused for allegedly getting the funds from China, routed through the US.

In a previous hearing, the cops had submitted that the accused “need to be confronted” with protected witnesses and electronic material seized in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case.

The Delhi Police arrested Purkayastha and Chakraborty on October 3 and remanded them to seven days of police custody on October 4.

Later, they were sent to judicial custody on October 10 for ten days, which was extended to five more days and then to police custody for nine days.

Earlier, Purkayastha’s counsel had vehemently denied the police charges, asking how his client, as a journalist doing a critical or impartial act of journalism about the government, could indulge in unlawful activities.

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) had also argued that the case was at a stage when evidence was still being collected, and the prosecution had sought judicial custody for the accused in all ‘’fairness’’.

Chakraborty’s counsel submitted that his client is only an HR head and not involved in the publication of any news on the website.

The counsel argued that all the journalistic works of his client are in the public domain.

He submitted that there is no allegation that they “used bombs, dynamite or any other explosive substance,” as there is a requirement of a ‘terrorist act’ under 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA act.

Khurana also argued that not a penny has come from China as funds as the police claimed while terming the FIR as “absurd.”

On the other hand, APP Atul Srivastava opposed the argument, saying the accused persons were not merely criticising the government but propagating the propaganda of a country that is inimical to us.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com