Court Grants Bail to Engineer in Manesar Case

GURUGRAM: A city sessions court has granted bail to software engineer Aditya Anand in the 9 April labour-violence case from IMT Manesar, observing that a demand for higher wages is not itself an offence and that persuading workers to raise that demand democratically cannot automatically be treated as a crime.

Additional Sessions Judge Dr Gagan Geet Kaur dealt with Anand's bail plea on Saturday. Anand was arrested on 5 June and is accused of conspiring to incite workers during violence at Richa Global Exports Pvt Ltd in Sector 7, IMT Manesar. The court directed his release to the satisfaction of the area or duty magistrate and clarified that the order would have no bearing on the merits of the case.

What the court weighed

The judge noted that Article 19(b) of the Constitution protects peaceful assembly without arms and Article 19(c) protects the right to form associations or unions, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Raising a wage demand because of rising living costs, the court said, is not an offence by itself, and pursuing workers for that purpose is also not an offence.

On evidence, the court found, prima facie, no incriminating material against Anand apart from mobile tower location data and disclosure statements. The investigating officer admitted there was no CCTV footage or photograph placing Anand at the spot. He was not a member of the protesters' WhatsApp group, no incriminating message had been traced to his phone, and the phone had not been seized. Mere tower location without corroboration, the court said, could not be treated as incriminating evidence. Whether any conspiracy existed would have to be tested at trial.

The prosecution case is that around 200 to 250 workers turned violent after days of protest for a salary hike, pelting stones, damaging vehicles and setting government and company vehicles on fire, with two women employees allegedly assaulted. Anand was accused of provoking workers and of taking part in vandalism. His counsel argued he is an NIT Jamshedpur-educated engineer, was neither a worker nor an employee of the company, was not named in the FIR, had no criminal antecedents, was arrested nearly two months later, and sought parity with 11 co-accused already on bail.

Bail is not an acquittal. The alleged conspiracy and violence remain matters for trial. For industrial Manesar, though, the Saturday order adds to a line of recent bail rulings from the same court that have separated lawful wage mobilisation from the violence that may follow a protest, insisting on corroborative evidence before prolonged custody.

Anand's defence leaned hard on parity and on the gap between tower dumps and direct acts. The prosecution leaned on conspiracy language and on the scale of the April unrest, including alleged attacks on women employees and the burning of vehicles. The judge did not decide who is right on those facts. She decided that, at the bail stage, the material against Anand did not justify continued custody once 11 co-accused were already out and recoveries from him were nil.

IMT Manesar employers and worker groups will read the order differently. Managements fear that bail language on wage demands will be spun as a free pass for street violence. Unions argue the opposite: that without such clarity, every wage meeting becomes a conspiracy file. The court's text tries to hold both ideas: wage protest is protected; violence is not; evidence must connect the accused to the latter.

Practically, Anand must still follow bail conditions set by the magistrate and remain available for trial dates. Police can still seek cancellation if they produce fresh material. Until then, Saturday's order is a custody decision grounded in Articles 19(b) and 19(c), a thin electronic trail and the absence of CCTV or chat evidence tying the engineer to the riot scenes described in the charges.