Delhi's Patiala House Court grants 3-day custody of five Indian Youth Congress workers

New Delhi [India], February 26 (ANI): Patiala House Court on Thursday granted 3 days' custody to five Indian Youth Congress workers arrested in connection with the AI Summit protest case. Delhi Police sought remand of the accused persons to investigate the case and ascertain their role in the "shirtless protests."
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Mridul Gupta granted further police custody of accsued Indian Youth Congress Gwalior District President Raja Gujar and former Bhind District Vice President Ajay Kumar Vimal. They were produced before the court after expiry of three days of police custody.
Meanwhile, a fresh 5-day police custody has been granted to the accused Saurabh, Arbaz and Siddharth. These three accsued were arrested from Himachal Pradesh and brought to Delhi on a transit remand obtained from a Himachal court.
Delhi Police had, however, sought 5 days' police custody of all five accused persons.
While seeking custody, the Delhi police submitted that the three accused were hiding in a resort in Himachal Pradesh. They were subsequently arrested on Wednesday and produced before the court.
Police alleged that Siddharth designed the T-shirt saying "PM is compromised", while Saurabh created the WhatsApp group, and Arbaz went to the venue during the protest at the AI Summit. Police said that the T-shirts worth Rs 1 lakh were printed.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastav submitted that their custody is required to investigate the planning and role, to identify the printing press.
However, Advocate Rupesh Singh Bhadauria, Counsel for the accused, opposed the remand application. Siddharth and Saurabh were not present at the spot.
"It is a witch hunt, Nothing more than that," he added. Counsel also said there is nothing to be recovered; everything is on paper.
The counsel argued that when police found nothing, they used the word 'Tukde-Tukde.' "Nothing is to be recovered; videos are there," counsel said, adding that "notice, before the arrest was not served."
APP Shrivastav opposed the submissions and argued that prior notice is not required to be given when custody of a person is required as per the Supreme Court judgement. It depends on the satisfaction of counsel to use the power of arrest.
Counsel for the accused, Advocate Rupesh Singh Bhadauria argued in rebuttal that the "power of arrest is one thing, the exercise of it is entirely another, and it should be justified," while the public prosecutor said that the "investigation officer is the person who exercises the power of arrest when he is satisfied."
The counsel further said that the police are harassing them as they belong to the opposite party." (ANI)