Dharavi Exam Cancellation Protest: Mumbai Sessions Court Grants Bail To YouTuber Vikas Phatak Aka Hindustani Bhau

The order was passed by Addl Sessions Judge PB Jadhav.

Bhau had filed the bail application against the magistrate's order refusing him bail. During the hearing, Bhau tendered an unconditional apology for the rioting that followed the protest.

Police arrested Vikas Phatak, 41, and his alleged aide Ikrar Khan for orchestrating the protest in Dharavi where over 1,000 students, mostly minors, blocked the roads and some of them took to violence, damaging vehicles, including police vehicles, and were lathi-charged by police. The incident happened a day after Phatak uploaded videos on social media asking students to protest against the Maharashtra government's decision to conduct offline exams for Class 10 and 12.

He was arrested on February 1 and booked under IPC Sections 353 (obstructing public servant from discharging duty), 332 (causing hurt to public servant), 427 (mischief causing damage), 109 (abetment) and 114 (abettor present when offence committed), 143, 145, 146, 149 for unlawful assembly and rioting and 188, 269, 270 for violating Covid-19 guidelines.

The police also booked them under Section 3 (mischief causing damage) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.

His advocate Aniket Nikam argued that Bhau was not served a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC as the offence he was booked for was punishable with upto 5 years imprisonment. Moreover, he was not arrested from the spot of the incident.

Bhau annexed transcripts of the video wherein he had appealed to the students to gather together and protest against offline exams. However, in the entire video the accused does not ask students to take law in their hands or to assault anyone, Nikam submitted.

In fact, Nikam claimed that in the same video Bhau is seen asking students to maintain law and order and not to harm anyone, especially police. Therefore it was argued that the accused never had any mens rea to commit an offence under Section 353 IPC.

Nikam submitted that despite not having assaulted anyone or pelted any stones, he is implicated using Section 149 IPC, i.e. common object shared by the unlawful assembly.

"No such common object was shared by the accused with those unidentified students who pelted stones particularly when all his videos on social media are seen," Nikam argued.

The public prosecutor claimed that the mob of students gathered at Bhau's insistence. Further, that Bhau ought to have foreseen the consequences of such a gathering.

Additionally, the police alleged that the accused had received remuneration from his social media activity and hence they needed to investigate whether anyone else is behind the applicant in organising the protests.