Supreme Court grants bail to law intern who moved court alleging communal frenzy in Indore prevented her from filing bail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to the 23-year-old law intern of a practicing Muslim advocate who had alleged that the 'communal frenzy' in Indore was preventing her from filing bail application before courts in Madhya Pradesh (MP) [Noorjahan @ Noori and anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh]..A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi was told by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the MP government, that the Court may release the accused on bail.The Court accepted the same and proceeded to release the accused. "After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material on record, we are inclined to release Petitioner No. 2 ... from jail, to which the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State has no objection. Ordered accordingly. It is directed that Petitioner No. 2 shall be released from jail forthwith on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court. Let this order be communicated through the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh forthwith", the Court ordered.Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave with advocate Rajesh Tyagi appeared for the petitioners..The petitioners, a practicing advocate and her law intern, moved the Court contending that a criminal complaint against them, was baseless.The intern was booked after lawyers objected to her allegedly recording court proceedings of a bail hearing of a Bajrang Dal leader accused of vandalism during the screening of Bollywood film Pathaan.It was alleged that she was subsequently frisked and abused by a group of rowdies, and thereafter arrested at their behest after they claimed that she worked for banned organisations like the Popular Front of India (PFI).The first petitioner, the advocate then had to leave the city and go into hiding, owing to fear for her life and security, it was claimed.The police also pasted a notice on her house in Indore."No application could be filed by local lawyers for the petitioners because of the communally charged atmosphere in Indore City...An apparently vicious communal environment prevails in the city that has unforunately engulfed in the District Court premises...The petitioners are not in a position to avail justice and their legal rights are totally jeopardized," the petitioners stated.Pertinently, it was alleged that Delhi lawyer Ehtesham Hashmi, who passed away recently, was also harassed by the same communal elements who are hounding the petitioners.The plea claimed that the heart attack Hashmi succumbed to was a result of the shock and trauma he suffered when he was surrounded while opposing the bail of the Bajrang Dal leader."There is a complete breakdown of law and order machinery in the respondent state. State authorities seem to be either infected by communal virus themselves or are under the pressure of communal elements," the petition said.The petitioners, therefore, prayed that an inquiry should be conducted by a High Court judge into the matter, and directions should be issued to the Madhya Pradesh government to ensure their safety.They also sought a stay on the arrest of the first petitioner and a direction to release the second on bail, apart from quashing of the first information report (FIR) against them.The Court had issued notice to the Madhya Pradesh government in the matter on March 17..The MP government in its response said that there is no law-and-order situation in the city of Indore as alleged by the petitioners.The State said that the bail application of one of the petitioners was already filed and argued by a lawyer."There exists no law-and-order situation in the city of Indore as has been contended by the Petitioners and as a matter of fact, the bail application of P-2 was filed and contested by a local lawyer," it was stated.Pertinently, the State government submitted that the allegation that advocates who had gone to Delhi to contest the bail applications on their behalf, had to seek protection from local police, was not true..The matter will next be heard on April 12, 2023.[Read order]