AI Summit protest: Delhi court reserves order on Manish Sharma's bail

Delhi's Patiala House Court on Saturday reserved its order on the anticipatory bail plea of Manish Sharma until March 18 in connection with the AI Summit protest case.

Add Asianet Newsable as a Preferred Source

Sharma has sought anticipatory bail and is alleged to be a key conspirator behind the protest held during the AI Impact Summit at Bharat Mandapam on February 20.

Meanwhile, the court granted interim protection from arrest to Rajeev Kumar, subject to the condition that he join the investigation on March 16.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amit Bansal reserved the order after hearing Sharma's anticipatory bail plea. Meanwhile, the court directed Rajeev Kumar to join the investigation on March 16 and thereafter, as and when called by the investigating officer. The Crime Branch has also been directed to file its reply. The matter has been listed for hearing on March 28.

Delhi Police Opposes Bail, Cites Conspiracy

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) DP Singh, along with Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastav and Prashant Prakash, appeared for the Delhi Police. Opposing the bail plea, ASG DP Singh argued that Manish Sharma is the in-charge of the Indian Youth Congress and the key conspirator in the protest. He submitted that Sharma had held a meeting with other co-accused persons to plan the demonstration.

'Protest Brought Bad Name to Country'

The ASG further argued that the protest, which brought a bad name to the country, was organised in the presence of foreign dignitaries attending the AI Impact Summit at Bharat Mandapam. He added that the AI Summit was held for the signing of a declaration on artificial intelligence by more than 100 countries, including the European Union.

ASG Singh submitted that restrictions were in place during the summit due to the presence of foreign dignitaries. He further argued that protests can be organised with permission, at designated places, and must remain peaceful. It was also submitted that no protest can be carried out in areas where restrictions have been imposed. "Protests are not new in the country. They can be organised where restrictions are not imposed," the ASG argued, adding that such demonstrations must take place only at designated locations where a restriction is not imposed.

'Conspiracy to Disrespect and Malign the Country'

It was further submitted that a recce was conducted on February 16, 17, and 18, following which the protest was carried out on February 20. The ASG also referred to CCTV footage from a restaurant where four accused persons were allegedly seen holding a meeting. He submitted that Manish Sharma had called Siddharth Avdhoot. "There is a conspiracy to disrespect and malign the country," the ASG said.

He further submitted that the custody of Manish Sharma was required, as other accused persons had named him in their statements. According to the prosecution, 16 people were present at the spot, of whom 12 were protesting while four were engaged in photography. Police had arrested four persons from the spot, the ASG submitted, adding that Manish Sharma had held meetings with the accused.

The ASG further argued that the custodial interrogation of Sharma was necessary to confront him with the material collected during the investigation and to unearth the larger conspiracy. He described Sharma as the key conspirator in the case. It was also submitted that protests are not permitted at locations or along routes used by foreign dignitaries. Foreign dignitaries were present at the AI Summit. The ASG further stated that there is a court order permitting protests only at Jantar Mantar and not at any other location.

Defense Argues Sharma Was Not Present at Protest

Senior Advocates Rebecca John and Tanvir Ahmed Mir, along with Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, appeared for Manish Sharma. John submitted that Sharma was not present at the spot during the protest. She argued that even if a scuffle had taken place, Sharma could not be held responsible. "Manish was not a member of any unlawful assembly," she submitted, adding that violation of a prohibitory order is a bailable offence.

'Violation of Prohibitory Order is Bailable Offence'

The senior counsel also questioned the applicability of the offence of promoting enmity between communities in the case. "Where is the enmity between communities? Nothing happened even after the protest," she argued. She further submitted that holding a protest beyond the designated area does not automatically constitute an offence. "What is the offence here? We need to look at it with a sense of balance. We can expect at least this from the police," counsel for the accused argued.

The senior advocate further argued that arrest should be a measure of last resort, as it brings humiliation and disrespect to the person being arrested. She contended that the facts of the case do not corroborate the allegations levelled against Sharma.

During the hearing, she also referred to an incident involving Galgotias University during the summit, stating, "During the Summit, Galgotia University did something which brought a bad name to India. Have the police registered a case against Galgotia? It was asked to leave the event. The government of China said that it was their robot. Had the Delhi police registered any case against Galgotia?"

Rebuttal and Co-accused's Status

In rebuttal arguments, ASG D P Singh submitted that Manish Sharma was the key conspirator and was responsible for the consequences of the protest. He further stated that three public servants had sustained injuries during the incident and that the accused persons were part of an unlawful assembly.

Advocates Amrish Ranjan, Nagendra Kumar, and Rahul Mishra appeared for Rajeev Kumar. It was submitted that Kumar is a media consultant and had attended the summit in his personal capacity as a participant.

The ASG also informed the court that "He is ready to join the investigation." (ANI)