Noida: Police have told court that the April 13 industrial unrest in the city — marked by arson, violence and attacks on police — was not a spontaneous workers’ outburst but a “well-planned conspiracy” orchestrated by a core group that held secret meetings, circulated inflammatory messages and mobilised factory workers across the industrial belt.The claim was made in voluminous chargesheets filed before the ACJM court against 89 accused in three key FIRs lodged at Phase II police station. Overall, the documents stitched together the police version of how the labour agitation escalated into one of Noida’s most serious industrial flashpoints in recent years.Seven persons were described as “main conspirators” — Aakriti Choudhary, Shrishti Gupta, Manisha Choudhan, Aditya Anand, Satyam Verma, Himanshu Thakur and Rupesh Roy. They were named in all three FIRs under charges ranging from criminal conspiracy, rioting, assault on public servants and arson to attempt to murder.The unrest had erupted amid simmering tension over layoffs and labour rights in the industrial cluster. It began as mobilisation outside factories, but spiralled into pitched clashes where public property was damaged and vehicles were set ablaze.In FIR 163, police have chargesheeted 10 persons and listed 77 witnesses. In FIR 164, originally against 1,500-2,000 unidentified people, 45 have been named with 88 witnesses. FIR 165 named 34 accused and invoked the gravest charges, including attempt to murder, grievous hurt to public servants and mischief by fire.The chargesheet also claimed that Aditya Anand, administrator of a workers’ WhatsApp group at Richa Global, allowed and circulated “provocative messages” to trigger protests. “He convened regular meetings with co-accused and was present at the protest sites,” the document said, adding that call detail records showed he was in Noida on April 10 and 11.Satyam Verma, police alleged, played a “key role” in mobilising workers and pushing RWPI-linked ideology.But buried in the documents is a glaring inconsistency. Police have admitted varying arrest dates for the same accused across FIRs. Aakriti’s arrest is shown as April 12 in one part of the record, April 22 in FIR 163, and April 27 in FIRs 164 and 165.Similar discrepancies appear for others, raising fresh questions over the chronology of arrests and custody.In FIR 163, police said the first arrests were of Aditya Anand, Satyam Verma and Himanshu Thakur on April 19, while Aakriti was arrested on April 22 and Shrishti Gupta and Manisha Choudhan on April 24. But in FIR 164, the arrest dates of Aakriti, Shrishti and Manisha are all shown as April 27. Rupesh Roy’s arrest, meanwhile, is shown as May 7 in both FIRs 163 and 164.The same chargesheet also names Priyamvada Sharma, Prerit Lodha and Yogesh Meena as accused not yet arrested — even though Yogesh was arrested on May 30 and remains in judicial custody.
