Human rights lawyer Anon Nampa and activist Panupong Jadnok have been detained after a court revoked their bail and they refused to reapply for it.

The Criminal Court on Thursday morning deliberated Samran Rat police�s request to revoke their bail. Officials claimed they had violated the bail conditions by committing offences in a manner similar to what they had been accused of. Police submitted as evidence clips of Mr Anon�s speeches at pro-democracy rallies in Chiang Mai and Thammasat University on Aug 8 and 10, respectively.

The court revoked the bail for Mr Anon, 35, saying it agreed with police. The court stressed it had yet to rule on his guilt � it only viewed his actions are of the same nature as the previous accusation against him � and Mr Anon could still apply for bail again.

However, the lawyer did not take the offer. Instead, he wrote a note to his supporters that his duty outside was done.

Bail granted
Protest-linked arrests
Activist nabbed

�Let my detention today be a proof of the intimidation of people. Let�s get back at them come Sept 19, 2020,� he wrote, referring to the Free People rally planned for that day.

In another courtroom, another judge also viewed Mr Panupong, 24, a Free Youth activist, had violated the terms of his bail. �But given his age, profession and the act cited as the reason to revoke his bail, the damage had not been done to the case and the accused deserved another chance,� the judge said.

It decided to increase the surety to 200,000 baht and require that he report himself to the court in 15 days.

Like Mr Anon, Mr Panupong did not take the offer. They were taken to Bangkok Remand Prison.

On Aug 7, the pair was held for their roles at the Free Youth rally at the Democracy monument in Bangkok. The seven charges against the two men are: inciting unrest or sedition (Section 116 of the Criminal Code); illegal assembly of more than 10 people (Section 215 of the Criminal Code); holding activities at risk of spreading contagious diseases (emergency decree); obstructing public space (Section 385 of the Criminal Code); obstructing traffic (Section 114 of the Land Traffic Act); violating the cleanliness law (Section 19) and using loudspeakers without prior approval (Section 4).

The charge under Section 116 carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

The court approved their temporary releases on bail the next day on condition that they not commit offences in the same manner that led to their arrest in the first place.

Both continued to join rallies, believing it was within their rights.