( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the case diary. ( 2 ) IN this case an application has been made by the petitioner for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a criminal case registered against her and a large number of other persons under sections 147/148/149/186/332/333/325/326/353/307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lady aged about 48 years. She is a President of Paschim Banga Khey Majoor Samity. This is a trade union of agricultural labourers. In her capacity as a President of the union and as a social worker, she has been appointed as an adviser to the commissioner by the Supreme Court in connection with W. P. No. 196 of 2001 for upholding and safeguarding the "right to Food" and "right to Work" in the state of West Bengal. She has been agitating on behalf of the agricultural labourer and land owners against the acquisition of land at Singur for setting up the Tata's Small Car Project. While she was participating in the agitation she has been implicated in this false criminal case. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners has been deliberately implicated so that, she is unable to continue to participate in the agitation. Bald assertions have been made against her without there being any material on the record. ( 4 ) WE have perused the case diary. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge categorically found that the injury report which are in the case diary do not support the case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The application for anticipatory bail has been rejected only on the ground that the agitation took place under the leadership of the petitioner. We are unable to accept the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge. Right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India read with Article 21. Unless and until there is sufficient material to indicate that the petitioner had actually indulged in criminal activities leading to non-bailable offences, her incarceration would be wholly unjustified. Right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India read with Article 21. Unless and until there is sufficient material to indicate that the petitioner had actually indulged in criminal activities leading to non-bailable offences, her incarceration would be wholly unjustified. ( 5 ) IN such circumstances we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail on the following conditions: (i) the petitioner would make himself available for interrogation by the investigating agency as and when required; (ii) no direct or indirect threat or any inducement would be made to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the petitioner must submit to the jurisdiction of the Regular Court within a period of four weeks. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. Appeal disposed of.