Fundamental right to protest circumscribed by thin line: Read the 3-page order by Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to Nodeep Kaur

It is for the trial court to decide whether or not the protests in which Nodeep Kaur allegedly participated had crossed the line resulting in vandalism and hooliganism, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said in its order while granting bail to her. .The Court noted that there are allegations and counter-allegations about the protests allegedly assuming a violent a character, but those are aspects for the trial court to look into. .The Court also said that while the right to protest is a fundamental right, it is circumscribed by a thin line. ."The crossing of line may change the colour of protest. It would be subject matter of trial as to whether the line for peaceful protests was crossed in the alleged incident or not," the Court said. .Justice Avneesh Jhingan proceeded to opine that while the matter is still being investigated, there is no reason preventing the grant of bail.."The petitioner is in custody since 12.1.2021. Albeit the matter is under investigation but that itself would not be sufficient ground to deny the personal liberty of the petitioner," the order said. .The bail plea before the Court related to one of the cases filed against Kaur following her arrest amid protests over the non-payment of wages to some labourers. It is the case of the police that the protests turned violent, that the protesters attacked the police, injured police officers and attempted to snatch weapons..The FIR cited offences under Sections 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to any person being a public servant), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 189 (threat of injury to public servant), 384 (punishment for extortion), 379B (snatching and use of force), 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .The Police also produced a video on a pen drive to submit that the police were attacked with dandas when they tried to disburse the crowd. .On behalf of Kaur, it was pointed out that two FIRs were filed over the same incident and that the second FIR was merely an improvement on the first FIR. Kaur had earlier been granted bail in relation to the first FIR. It was also argued that there no specific injury has been attributed to Kaur for invoking the offence of Section 307, IPC..The Court, however, opined that it is not appropriate to go into detailed discussions on the merits of the allegations. It further observed that the fate of the case may turn on whether the protests were peaceful or not. However, this was a matter for the trial court to look into, the High Court said. .In this regard, the judge recalled the Supreme Court's ruling in Anita Thakur and ors v Govt of J&K and ors, wherein the top court had ruled that holding of peaceful demonstrations is a right which can be traced to fundamental rights, but that the same is subject to reasonable restrictions."It would be appropriate to say that the right to peaceful protest is circumscribed by a thin line. The crossing of the line may change the colour of protest. It would be a subject matter of trial as to whether the line for peaceful protest was crossed in the alleged incident or not," the order stated. .The question of invoking Sections 307, 332, 353 and 379B of IPC would also be a debatable issue to be considered during trial, the Court said. .Justice Jhingan added that it is also too early to comment on the video recording produced by the police. Having said that, the Court opined that the petitioner should maintain restraint while out on bail. ."At this stage, no comment is being made on the video recording produced in pen drive before this Court. However, it will suffice that the petitioner shall remain a restrain while being on bail to ensure that no law and order issue arises due to her actions (sic)", the order said..Kaur was, therefore, granted bail subject to furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate concerned. .[Read Order]