Workers arrested during wage-related protests in Noida in April 2026 spent an average of 53 days in jail before courts began granting bail, according to an investigation by The Indian Express. The investigation examined 106 arrests linked to the protests and found that courts granted relief in a large majority of the bail pleas examined, raising questions about prolonged detention and the need to establish individual responsibility in cases involving large crowds.
Protests Began Over Wages and Working Conditions
The protests began on April 10, with workers from private companies in Noida demanding higher wages, better working conditions and improved employment terms. The demonstrations continued for roughly a week across several industrial areas.
The protests later turned confrontational at some locations, with police alleging incidents including stone-pelting, damage to property, road blockades and attacks on police personnel. A large number of workers and others were subsequently booked in multiple FIRs registered across Noida’s industrial zones.
The legal proceedings continued even after the Uttar Pradesh government announced revisions to minimum wages. The wage increase, however, did not immediately resolve the legal difficulties faced by those who had already been arrested.
106 Arrests Examined
The Indian Express investigation reviewed 106 arrests connected with the protests. Its findings showed that many accused remained in custody for weeks before their bail applications received judicial consideration.
Across cases carrying substantive allegations, courts granted relief in 84% of the bail pleas examined. Judges repeatedly emphasised that simply being present in a protest crowd does not automatically establish that an individual participated in violence, conspiracy or other criminal acts.
This distinction became particularly important because several FIRs described the alleged actions of large groups collectively rather than identifying a specific role for every accused person.
In one case involving hundreds of workers, the court observed that the mere fact that an accused was part of a crowd could not, by itself, establish that the person shared the same criminal intent as those accused of violence.
Courts Questioned Collective Allegations
Several bail orders reportedly highlighted gaps between allegations against protest groups and evidence against individual accused workers.
In one FIR, 31 people were granted bail while six were denied. The prosecution alleged that workers had entered an electronics company’s premises carrying sticks, bricks and stones. However, the court noted that collective allegations against a crowd did not necessarily establish an identical criminal role for every person arrested.
Another case involved allegations of stone-pelting and vandalism. The court reportedly found that the prosecution had not placed sufficient CCTV or electronic evidence showing the accused personally engaging in violent activity.
In yet another case, 21 workers received bail while seven were denied, with the court observing that mere presence in a protesting crowd could not automatically make every participant equally liable when no specific act was attributed to them.
Some Accused Remain in Jail
The legal picture was not uniform. Courts continued to deny bail to several accused where investigators presented allegations of specific involvement in conspiracy, mobilisation or violence.
Some activists were accused of organising workers, operating WhatsApp groups or encouraging people to participate in the demonstrations. In such cases, courts considered the alleged individual role and available material before deciding whether bail should be granted.
Two people were also detained under the National Security Act (NSA), adding another layer to the legal proceedings. Challenges to those detentions remained pending before higher courts.
Wider Questions About Protest and Bail
The Noida cases have now become part of a broader debate about how mass protests are handled by law-enforcement agencies and courts. The findings highlight the tension between maintaining public order when demonstrations turn violent and ensuring that individuals are not kept in custody solely because they were present at a protest.
For the workers, the lengthy custody period has also carried financial and personal consequences, including lost wages, debt and uncertainty about returning to employment.
The episode demonstrates why courts’ insistence on specific evidence and individual attribution can become crucial when criminal cases emerge from large-scale protests.
