Disha Ravi case at standstill, Delhi Police may file closure report soon: Report

The probe into the case against Bengaluru-based environmentalist Disha Ravi for a toolkit about the farmers' protest has come to a standstill, with Zoom and Google not replying to queries sent by the Delhi Police.

According to a report by The Indian Express, the police will not file a charge sheet against Ravi, who was detained under charges of sedition, but will instead mull filing a closure report.

Ravi was arrested by the Delhi Police on February 13 in Bengaluru. She was immediately flown to Delhi where she was detained for 10 days, before a Delhi court granted her bail, raising question marks over the evidence used to arrest her. She was accused of being part of a Zoom call that included a member of the Pro-Khalistan outfit Poetic Justice Foundation.

Also Read | Government 'diluting' environmental laws: Disha Ravi

An official from the Cyber Cell Division of Delhi Police told the publication that when contacted, neither Zoom nor Google responded. The investigators were unable to send the companies a time-bound notice since they were not based in India, the official added.

Even in the case of Nikhila Jacob and Shantanu — believed to be authors and editors of the toolkit — who are associated with UK-based advocacy group Extinction Rebellion, investigators failed to get any response.

Cops had alleged in February that the toolkit's content showed that the Republic Day violence was a pre-planned conspiracy aimed at attacking India's sovereignty and security. They even leaked certain chats from her phone to the media.

Also Read | Toolkit case: Did not leak Disha Ravi's private chats to media, Delhi Police tells HC

When granting bail, a Delhi court said that the creation of a WhatsApp group or being editor of an innocuous 'toolkit' is not an offence. Further, since the link with the said toolkit or PJF has not been found to be objectionable, mere deletion of the WhatsApp chat "to destroy the evidence" also becomes meaningless.

The court said mere engagement with persons of dubious credentials is not indictable, rather it is the purpose of engagement that is relevant for deciding culpability.

Check out latest DH videos here