It is a story of two protests – and two very completely 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 won’t pursue any case in opposition to the protesters.
In sharp distinction, again in April manufacturing unit employees in Noida obtained no such assurance regardless of a week-long protest to demand greater wages. As a substitute, a police crackdown noticed as much as 200 folks taken into custody, together with two booked underneath the stringent Nationwide Safety Act (NSA), which permits detention with out trial for as much as a 12 months.
On April 14, the Uttar Pradesh authorities raised the wages however it took the courts to grant reduction to a lot of the jailed protesters.
The Indian Express investigated 106 arrests with substantive allegations, starting from rioting and arson to try to homicide — the common interval a protester spent in custody was 53 days. These arrests led to 222 bail orders linked to seven FIRs.
AI-generated picture
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, moderately than establishing what anyone employee really did.
Story continues beneath this advert
Three gaps have been flagged by the courtroom within the bail orders: mere presence at a protest will not be 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.
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 hitch the agitation, or have been straight linked to particular acts, equivalent to arson.
19-year-old says stepped out for meals, was arrested (Categorical picture)
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 cops linked to the investigation declined remark.
What the courts discovered
An investigation of 222 bail orders by periods courts and the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom present how every case was examined in opposition to proof positioned on file:
Story continues beneath this advert
1. FIR No. 149/2026, police station: Noida Section III
31 granted bail, 6 denied: ‘Mere becoming a member of the gang will not be proof of intent’
Allegation: On April 13, round 300-400 accused entered the premises of M Ok 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 workers with intent to trigger dying.
What periods courtroom stated: Granting bail, after proof confirmed they have been firm workers, the courtroom stated: “The mere undeniable fact that he was a part of the gang can’t, by itself, result in the conclusion that he possessed the identical grave legal intent.” It discovered that the prosecution had described the gang’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 periods 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 opposed message being conveyed to society”.
Story continues beneath this advert
This 20-year-old stated he was picked up from the lane exterior residence. (Categorical picture)
2. FIR No. 151/2026, police station: Noida Section III
37 granted bail: ‘No visible proof to again severe accusation’
Allegation: On April 13, the accused allegedly “pelted stones” at homeowners of assorted corporations and their workers who have 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 induced in depth harm by vandalising safety gates, CCTV cameras, glass buildings and workplace property.
The prosecution relied on an “informant’s assertion”, “inspection of the place of prevalence” and “CCTV footage”.
What periods courtroom stated: Granting bail, it famous: “…no such CCTV footage or digital file has been positioned on the file which depicts or captures the accused indulging in any violent actions.”
Story continues beneath this advert
3: FIR No. 163/2026, police station: Noida Section II
3 granted bail, 10 denied: ‘Conspiracy stood in method of bail’
Allegation: Protests by employees of Paramount Exports, Anubhav Apparels and Richa International between April 10 and 11 have been organised with the target of staging a violent, aggressive agitation to stress the state into assembly “illegal, unconstitutional and inappropriate calls for”.
What periods courtroom stated: With the chargesheet filed, bail was granted to a few accused who had “remained in judicial custody for a protracted time frame”, with no additional proof assortment pending.
Ten have 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.
Story continues beneath this advert
4: FIR No. 165/2026, police station: Noida Section II
29 granted bail, 6 denied: ‘No proof to again accusations’
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 periods courtroom stated: Granting bail, the courtroom discovered it was “not clear” how eyewitnesses have 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 file displaying any particular and energetic position of the accused within the fee of the alleged offences,” the courtroom stated.
Story continues beneath this advert
In a single order, it famous: “…the case pertains to a labour agitation. The presence of the accused on the labourers’ protest will not be unnatural.” In six instances, bail was granted by the Excessive Courtroom.
Bail was denied to seven others described by the prosecution as “conspirators”.
5. FIR No. 169/2026, police station: Noida Section II
26 granted bail, 1 denied: ‘No rationalization for FIR delay’
Allegation: Workers of Richa International allegedly staged protests from April 10 in assist of wage calls for, unlawfully blocking the garment exporter’s gates, restraining workers from getting into, and disrupting operations, with threats to resort to “vandalism and arson”.
Story continues beneath this advert
Comparable incidents have been alleged on April 11 and 13, with employees stated to have been added to WhatsApp teams and instigated by “outsiders”. The prosecution stated one accused was apprehended on the spot regardless of “not being an worker of the corporate”.
What periods courtroom stated: Granting bail to 21, the courtroom famous that the FIR was lodged almost “ten days” after the alleged incident and that a number of accused have been “not named therein”, with no passable rationalization for the delay. “The FIR alleges wrongful confinement, vandalism and threats of arson, however doesn’t replicate any precise incident of arson or accidents,” it stated. In six instances, bail was granted by the Excessive Courtroom.
Bail was denied to 1 accused in opposition to whom the prosecution positioned CCTV footage and different materials establishing a particular position.
6. FIR No. 172/2026, police station: Noida Section I
21 granted bail, 7 denied: ‘Mere presence in crowd not sufficient’
Allegation: Staff of an auto elements producer blocked a public street, 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 periods courtroom stated: Granting bail to 21, the courtroom held that the “solely allegation” was that the accused “have been current within the protesting crowd”. “It seems that he was a part of a protest regarding the pursuits of employees,” the courtroom noticed in a single order. The position of each individual within the crowd “can’t be handled the identical”, it stated. “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 stated. In seven instances, bail was granted by the Excessive Courtroom.
7. FIR No. 164/2026, police station: Noida Section 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) have been granted by the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom. The Excessive Courtroom adopted a broad normal, granting bail on the premise of “details and circumstances of the case”, “proof on file”, 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, have been triggered primarily by three elements: 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 equivalent to provident fund. Most have been employed quickly by way of contractors. They stated they have been formally on eight-hour shifts however routinely labored 10-12 hours with few breaks. Security, particularly for girls, 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 in opposition to them could be handled harshly. ENS Financial Bureau
⠀
