Noida: A sessions court granted conditional bail to a factory worker nearly a month after he was arrested in connection with the industrial workers’ protest of April 13, holding that the prosecution had not produced enough evidence at this stage to justify keeping him in jail.Granting relief, judge Somprabha Mishra said there was no material before the court to indicate that Rohit Kumar (24) was part of the mob or had any “specific active role” in the violence that broke out during the protest.“The prosecution states that the accused’s involvement was established during investigation based on statements from the plaintiff, site inspections and CCTV footage. However, no CCTV footage or electronic prints documenting the accused’s violent activities have been presented so far,” the judge said.Kumar, arrested on May 11, was asked to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety of the same amount, along with an undertaking, for his release. The court also ordered him to cooperate with the probe and “remain present in court on every date”. He was warned not to influence the complainant or prosecution, and not to intimidate witnesses.Kumar’s case is linked to FIR number 151, naming 100-200 labourers accused of blocking traffic in sectors 64, 65, 67, 68 and 69, raising slogans, and allegedly carrying “lethal weapons, sticks, bricks and stones” to vandalise property during the April 13 unrest.Arguing for his bail, Kumar’s counsel said he was not named in the FIR and was “falsely implicated”. The lawyer said police picked him up when he stepped out to buy medicine and sent him to jail. “He did not vandalise any company, nor was he present at the scene… There is no independent witness… He has no criminal history,” the counsel argued.The assistant district govt counsel (criminal) opposed bail, saying several firms were vandalised, causing substantial damage, and that multiple complaints had been received.After hearing both sides, the court said the investigation was still underway and reiterated that no evidence had been produced so far to show Kumar’s presence in the mob or an active role. “The defence argues that the witness statements are not authentic as an employee of one company cannot be an eyewitness to incidents of vandalism in multiple companies. Therefore, the above facts and circumstances provide sufficient grounds for bail,” it noted.
