KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to filmmaker-activist Aisha Sultana accused of sedition for her alleged remarks that the central government had used Covid-19 as a 'bio-weapon' against the islanders.
While granting bail, Justice Ashok Menon observed that "Prima facie, the offences alleged by the prosecution are not attracted. She has no criminal antecedents. She is not likely to flee from justice."
Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, the counsel for Aisha Sultana, submitted that she is innocent and the allegations of sedition and inciting disharmony among groups of people are totally false and unsustainable. She had no intention to excite disaffection towards the Government of India.
The court noted that Aisha Sultana had expressed her regret about the use of the words 'bio weapon'. Custodial interrogation and her incarceration in prison, particularly in these pandemic times, may not be required.
The prosecution has also not expressed any fear of her fleeing from justice or not cooperating with the investigation, the court added. Nor has the prosecution expressed its intention to subject her to custodial interrogation. No evidence in the case can be tampered with and there is little risk of witnesses being influenced or intimidated. Consequent to the granting of interim anticipatory bail on June 17, the petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation, and there was no report that she has not complied with that direction of the court.
Hence, the interim anticipatory bail is made absolute, the court ruled. In the event of her arrest, she should be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs 50000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
Opposing the bail plea, S Manu, counsel for the Lakshadweep administration, had earlier submitted that in plain terms the applicant has alleged that the central government has used the Covid-19 virus as a bio-weapon against the people of Lakshadweep. She has also compared it with the rumours that were rife about China using Coronavirus as a bioweapon against the citizens of other countries. She suggested that the Government of India has acted in a similar way against the citizens of India in Lakshadweep.
The court observed that the decisive ingredient for establishing the offence of sedition under section 124-A IPC is doing certain acts that will bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt. There was no suggestion that she did anything as such against the Government of India.
She only protested against the newly-introduced reforms by the Administrator and has sworn allegiance to the people of Lakshadweep. There was no apparent indication in her statement that amounts to imputations or assertions prejudicial to the national interest, nor does it propagate any class of persons against another group of persons. It is therefore doubtful whether the penal provisions of section 153-A would apply in this case, the court observed.