This can be a story of two protests – and two very totally different outcomes.
Final month, the Jantar Mantar protest demanding a leak-proof examination system ended with the Dharmendra Pradhan resigning as the Union Education Minister and an assurance by the Centre and states that the police is not going to pursue any case towards the protesters.
In sharp distinction, again in April manufacturing unit employees in Noida bought no such assurance regardless of a week-long protest to demand greater wages. As a substitute, a police crackdown noticed as much as 200 individuals taken into custody, together with two booked below the stringent Nationwide Safety Act (NSA), which permits detention with out trial for as much as a yr.
On April 14, the Uttar Pradesh authorities raised the wages nevertheless it took the courts to grant reduction to many of the jailed protesters.
The Indian Express investigated 106 arrests with substantive allegations, starting from rioting and arson to aim to homicide — the common interval a protester spent in custody was 53 days. These arrests led to 222 bail orders linked to seven FIRs.
The investigation revealed that reduction was granted in as many as 188, or 84 per cent. Nevertheless, the orders had a constant sample. Judges repeatedly discovered that the police case rests on treating a crowd because the accused, relatively than establishing what anyone employee truly did.
AI-generated picture
Three gaps had been flagged by the courtroom within the bail orders: mere presence at a protest isn’t proof to disclaim bail; lack of particular proof outweighs gravity of expenses; strange employees on the protest can’t be equated with these discovered organising or instigating violence.
Story continues beneath this advert
Bail was repeatedly declined the place the prosecution positioned prima facie materials suggesting the accused had organised or mobilised the protests, coordinated WhatsApp teams to safe participation, acted as conspirators, instigated others to affix the agitation, or had been immediately linked to particular acts, corresponding to arson.
19-year-old says stepped out for meals, was arrested (Categorical photograph)
The Indian Categorical emailed a questionnaire detailing these findings to Laxmi Singh, Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida). She was unavailable for remark. Senior law enforcement officials linked to the investigation declined remark.
What the courts discovered
An investigation of 222 bail orders by classes courts and the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom present how every case was examined towards proof positioned on report:
1. FIR No. 149/2026, police station: Noida Part III
31 granted bail, 6 denied: ‘Mere becoming a member of the group isn’t proof of intent’
Story continues beneath this advert
Allegation: On April 13, round 300-400 accused entered the premises of M Okay Electronics in Sector 67 carrying lathis, sticks, bricks, stones and “lethal weapons”, raised slogans, hurled abuses and prolonged “threats to kill”. The accused, with a typical intention, dedicated rioting, criminally trespassed into the corporate’s premises, and assaulted the complainant and staff with intent to trigger dying.
What classes courtroom mentioned: Granting bail, after proof confirmed they had been firm staff, the courtroom mentioned: “The mere indisputable fact that he was a part of the group can’t, by itself, result in the conclusion that he possessed the identical grave legal intent.” It discovered that the prosecution had described the group’s acts “in a collective method with out specifying the person roles”. In 14 instances, bail was granted by the Excessive Courtroom.
Bail was denied by the classes courtroom to 6 accused who had no direct employer-employee relationship with the corporate, with the courtroom noting that the “accused can affect the witnesses” and flagging “the probability of an adversarial message being conveyed to society”.
20-year-old says picked up from lane outdoors dwelling. (Categorical photograph)
2. FIR No. 151/2026, police station: Noida Part III
37 granted bail: ‘No visible proof to again severe accusation’
Story continues beneath this advert
Allegation: On April 13, the accused allegedly “pelted stones” at house owners of varied corporations and their staff who had been at work, with the intention of “inflicting their dying”. They allegedly entered the premises unlawfully, armed with “lethal weapons”, together with lathis, sticks, bricks and stones, and brought on in depth injury by vandalising safety gates, CCTV cameras, glass constructions and workplace property.
The prosecution relied on an “informant’s assertion”, “inspection of the place of incidence” and “CCTV footage”.
What classes courtroom mentioned: Granting bail, it famous: “…no such CCTV footage or digital report has been positioned on the report which depicts or captures the accused indulging in any violent actions.”
3: FIR No. 163/2026, police station: Noida Part II
3 granted bail, 10 denied: ‘Conspiracy stood in approach of bail’
Story continues beneath this advert
Allegation: Protests by employees of Paramount Exports, Anubhav Apparels and Richa World between April 10 and 11 had been organised with the target of staging a violent, aggressive agitation to stress the state into assembly “illegal, unconstitutional and inappropriate calls for”.
What classes courtroom mentioned: With the chargesheet filed, bail was granted to a few accused who had “remained in judicial custody for an extended time frame”, with no additional proof assortment pending.
Ten had been denied bail over prima facie allegations of an energetic conspiratorial position, together with claims that they’d created WhatsApp teams within the names of corporations to mobilise employees, and that banners, posters and pamphlets associated to the motion had been recovered from their residences.
4: FIR No. 165/2026, police station: Noida Part II
29 granted bail, 6 denied: ‘No proof to again accusations’
Story continues beneath this advert
Allegation: About 450-500 employees assembled at Sector 84 and different areas on April 13 to protest over wages, time beyond regulation and bonuses. The protest, which ran from round 8.30 am to 9.30 pm, turned violent as protesters attacked police with lathis and stones, broken authorities and personal autos, set some ablaze, and blocked public roads.
The prosecution cited impartial witnesses, together with a “water vendor, a chowmein cart proprietor, and a rickshaw-puller”, and a police witness.
What classes courtroom mentioned: Granting bail, the courtroom discovered it was “not clear” how eyewitnesses had been “beforehand acquainted” with, or in a position to establish, the accused, and that no CCTV footage, video or pictures positioned the accused on the scene. “No materials has been positioned on report exhibiting any particular and energetic position of the accused within the fee of the alleged offences,” the courtroom mentioned.
In a single order, it famous: “…the case pertains to a labour agitation. The presence of the accused on the labourers’ protest isn’t unnatural.” In six instances, bail was granted by the Excessive Courtroom.
Story continues beneath this advert
Bail was denied to seven others described by the prosecution as “conspirators”.
5. FIR No. 169/2026, police station: Noida Part II
26 granted bail, 1 denied: ‘No rationalization for FIR delay’
Allegation: Workers of Richa World allegedly staged protests from April 10 in assist of wage calls for, unlawfully blocking the garment exporter’s gates, restraining staff from getting into, and disrupting operations, with threats to resort to “vandalism and arson”.
Comparable incidents had been alleged on April 11 and 13, with employees mentioned to have been added to WhatsApp teams and instigated by “outsiders”. The prosecution mentioned one accused was apprehended on the spot regardless of “not being an worker of the corporate”.
Story continues beneath this advert
What classes courtroom mentioned: Granting bail to 21, the courtroom famous that the FIR was lodged practically “ten days” after the alleged incident and that a number of accused had been “not named therein”, with no passable rationalization for the delay. “The FIR alleges wrongful confinement, vandalism and threats of arson, however doesn’t mirror any precise incident of arson or accidents,” it mentioned. In six instances, bail was granted by the Excessive Courtroom.
Bail was denied to at least one accused towards whom the prosecution positioned CCTV footage and different materials establishing a particular position.
6. FIR No. 172/2026, police station: Noida Part I
21 granted bail, 7 denied: ‘Mere presence in crowd not sufficient’
Allegation: Staff of an auto parts producer blocked a public highway, broken authorities and firm property, and pelted stones at police personnel, injuring a number of officers, whereas elevating calls for for greater wages and extra days off, creating an “ambiance of worry and unrest”.
What classes courtroom mentioned: Granting bail to 21, the courtroom held that the “solely allegation” was that the accused “had been current within the protesting crowd”. “It seems that he was a part of a protest in regards to the pursuits of employees,” the courtroom noticed in a single order. The position of each particular person within the crowd “can’t be handled the identical”, it mentioned. “Mere presence in a crowd doesn’t, by itself, make each accused equally liable, specifically when no particular act has been attributed to the accused,” the courtroom mentioned. In seven instances, bail was granted by the Excessive Courtroom.
7. FIR No. 164/2026, police station: Noida Part II
41 granted bail, 4 denied: HC raised bar on proof and parity
A majority of bail purposes linked to this FIR (39 of 41) had been granted by the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom. The Excessive Courtroom adopted a broad normal, granting bail on the idea of “info and circumstances of the case”, “proof on report”, and grounds of parity.
What triggered protests: Rising prices, Haryana wage hike
The April protests in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, a part of the Nationwide Capital Area, had been triggered primarily by three components: rising LPG cylinder costs amid the West Asia disaster, WhatsApp rumours in late March that new Labour Codes would elevate minimal wages, and wage-hike protests in Haryana’s Manesar.
⠀
Staff cited a rising financial burden, black-market LPG costs, unrealistic work targets, and no social safety advantages corresponding to provident fund. Most had been employed briefly by contractors. They mentioned they had been formally on eight-hour shifts however routinely labored 10-12 hours with few breaks. Security, particularly for ladies, was one other concern.
Hike in wages
In Haryana, after the Manesar protests, the state authorities introduced a 35% hike in minimal month-to-month wages on April 9, backdated to April 1 — Rs 15,220.71 for unskilled employees and Rs 19,425.85 for extremely expert employees.
This intensified the Noida protests, which turned violent as employees and activists took to the streets. Calm returned after UP introduced its personal interim wage hike on April 14 — from Rs 11,313 to Rs 13,690 for unskilled employees, and from Rs 13,940 to Rs 16,868 for expert employees in Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida) and Ghaziabad. Authorities in Noida additionally warned contractors that complaints towards them could be handled harshly. ENS Financial Bureau
⠀
