Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Orissa High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of leading a group of individuals to attack Muslim community shops and raising anti-Muslim slogans which resulted in a chaotic scenario in Sambalpur city last month.

The single judge bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash while denying the anticipatory bail said, “Pre-arrest bail being an extraordinary discretionary power cannot be granted in routine. There is nothing in the F.I.R. that the Petitioner holds a prestigious position so as to draw an inference that in a situation of this kind, a case could have been hatched against him in order to defame him.”

The petitioner sought grant of bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. in the apprehension of arrest for his alleged involvement in the offences under Sections 147/148/153-A/436/149, I.P.C. in connection with the Sambalpur Town matter.

“On the contrary, grant of pre-arrest bail vis-à-vis the allegations made in the F.I.R. will have a great ramification when the situation is volatile and as such it is not desirable to allow pre[1]arrest bail in favour of the Petitioner before he is subjected to investigation/interrogation,” the court added.

On April 14, 2023, an FIR was filed against a group of people, including the petitioner for allegedly ransacking the New Alishan Shoe Centre in Sambalpur town during the celebration of Hanuman Jayanti.

Based on preliminary investigations, it was discovered that approximately 50 people attacked the Shoe Centre and screamed harsh and inflammatory slogans against the Muslim community which infringes on their religious emotions.

It was claimed that the petitioner headed the group and had earlier planned to assault Muslim community shops and homes in retaliation for certain violent occurrences that occurred at a bike protest organised by the Hanuman Jayanti Seva Samiti on April 12, 2023, which created a very dangerous scenario, which created a curfew throughout the city.

As he anticipated his arrest, the petitioner approached the High Court, requesting anticipatory bail.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that he had no role in the alleged incident and he had been falsely implicated in the matter.

Counsel representing the respondent argued that the matter in issue is not only sensitive but the situation is not yet clear in the locality, and there being materials against the man prima facie attributable against him to have led the mob, the petitioner should not be granted bail. The allegations made in the FIR substantially attribute the offences against the man.

The court after hearing the parties noted that the incident was one out of the retaliation to the incident that occurred just three days before the Hanuman Jayanti on April 14, 2023.

Also, the name of the current petitioner, along with others, appeared in the FIR, which led the mob and attacked the Muslim community's shops and residential houses.

“A judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that a riot took place thereafter leading to arson and bloodshed,” the court observed.

“Nothing also appears from the ground propounded by the Petitioner in his prayer for pre-arrest bail showing him to be a person having a clean image or a man of standing repute, the custodial interrogation whereupon would tarnish his image,” the court noted.

Accordingly, the bench denied the application to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Case Title: Aniket Mishra vs. The State of Odisha

Statute: Section 438 Cr. P.C