New Delhi [India], October 12 : A special NIA court in New Delhi charged Inderpal Singh Gaba under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a case connected with a protest at the Indian High Commission in London, United Kingdom, in 2023. However, the court discharged him for the offence of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971.
NIA Judge Vikas Dhull charged him under Section 13 (1) of UAPA. He has been discharged under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971.
"This court is of the opinion that there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence of participating in the unlawful activity and, therefore, he is required to be charged for the offence under Section 13(1) of the UA(P) Act. However, the accused is discharged for the offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971," Special Judge Vikas Dhull ordered on October 8.
Advocate Anil Dabas appeared for the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Advocate Arun Khatri appeared for Accused Inderpal Singh Gaba, who sought discharge in the present case under Section 13 of the UAPA, and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971.
"We will challenge this in the High Court. It will be interesting to see how HC is going to evaluate the material collected by NIA against my client, who is a foreign national, for an event happening on foreign soil, especially the sanction part," Advocate Khatri said.
The brief facts, relevant for deciding the issue of charge, pertain to March 19, 2023 (Sunday), when, at about 1345 Hrs. (GMT), approximately 50-60 agitators assembled in front of the High Commission of India, London (UK) building. They were carrying yellow flags used by Khalistani separatists.
It is alleged that among the agitators, one Avtar Singh alias Khanda, an Indian national, and one Gurcharan Singh, wearing saffron turbans, were instigating the mob by shouting anti-India and Pro-Khalistani slogans, and one of the agitators wearing a saffron turban was climbing up the balcony with the help of fellow mobsters, where the Indian National Flag was hoisted.
One Jasvir Singh was also helping the rioters climb up the Flag post balcony. He dishonourably pulled down the Indian National Flag and was trying to pass it down towards the rioters and sidewalk, who were trying to tear the Indian National Flag.
The agitators downstairs were pulling down the rope of the Indian National Flag with full force. Meanwhile, the rioter atop the balcony was handed over a yellow Khalistani flag by his fellow agitators from below, and he started waving it and also tried putting that flag on the flag post, it is alleged.
It is also alleged that the said rioter, who had climbed the balcony, had intruded into the building of the High Commission of India, London, then assaulted the Officers deployed there with a Metallic Flag Pole (pipe) that he was carrying with the intent to deter the officers from discharging their duty of ensuring the safety and security of the High Commission of India, London. His actions resulted in grievous injuries to the Officers deployed at the High Commission of India, London.
The allegations are that the rioters below, meanwhile, were constantly exhorting and motivating the one who had reached the balcony to throw the Officer of Indian High Commission of India, London, down while continuing with slogans which were aimed at establishing Khalistan.
While all this was happening, some agitators started hitting at the window panes and outer glass doors of the High Commission of India, London, including the main entrance gate, with metallic rods, thereby causing extensive damage to the High Commission's property. They were continuously shouting aggressive Khalistani slogans to intimidate and create fear in the minds of the officials of the High Commission of India, London.
It is further alleged that Gurcharan Singh and Avtar Singh Khanda kept instigating the rioters to attack the Officers of the High Commission of India, London. The agitators, after having achieved their objectives of pulling down the Indian National flag, waved a Khalistani flag in its place, vandalised the High Commission property and caused serious injuries to the officers of the High Commission of India, London, and dispersed after some time while continuing with their threats and slogans.
Subsequently, in connection with the incident, which happened on 19.03.2023, an FIR No. 80/23 was registered under Sections 109, 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 448, 452 and 325 of IPC, Section 13 of UA(P) Act, 1967, Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Subsequently, a case was re-registered by the NIA.
It was submitted by Advocate Arun Khatri, counsel for the accused, that the facts disclosed in the chargesheet do not make out a case for the framing of charges against the accused.
It was submitted that there is no material on record to show that a prima facie case exists against the accused or that there is a strong and grave suspicion that the accused has committed the offence mentioned in the chargesheet. Therefore, the accused deserves to be discharged in the present case.
The counsel had further submitted that no offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is made out.
It was submitted that the alleged flag, which was desecrated on 22.03.2023, was never seized, as admitted in the chargesheet. Secondly, it is an admitted case of the NIA that the accused is a British National and even the alleged offence had taken place in London. Further, the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971 extends to the whole of India and contains no extraterritorial provision.
Therefore, the alleged act of a British citizen on a street of London is not an offence under section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971. Therefore, the accused deserves to be discharged for the said offence, the counsel argued.
About the offence under Section 13(1) of the UA(P) Act, it was submitted that in the initial FIR registered by Prosecution Witness Kiran Kumar Bhosale, the accused was not named, and there was no mention of the incident dated 22.03.2023.
It was further submitted that the initial FIR only pertains to the incident of 19.03.2023 and it is an admitted case of NIA that the accused was not present in the said incident of 19.03.2023.
It was further submitted that no material has been placed on record to show that the accused was part of a conspiracy to commit the offence of 19.03.2023 and 22.03.2023, and that is why the NIA has intentionally not invoked section 120-B IPC against the accused.