Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has recently granted bail to Javed Mohammad-the alleged mastermind behind the June 10 violent agitation last year in Prayagraj.

The single judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that in the present case, only general allegations were made against all the accused persons including Mohammad.

In the said mob violence against the now-suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks against Prophet Mohammad, more than 200 persons had hurled bombs, damaged public property, and set vehicles on fire. In the incident, three police personnel had also sustained injuries.

Regarding Mohammad's role in the violence, the bench noted that neither it was alleged in the FIR nor any of the prosecution witnesses had stated that Mohammad instigated the people or was leading the mob.

"From the perusal of FIR and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that general role has been attributed to all the accused persons including the applicant," the bench observed. 

The bench further highlighted that though during investigations, the accused persons had stated that Mohammad was instrumental and on his instigation, they had joined the mob and Mohammad also had stated that he instructed the people to gather after Friday prayer on June 10, he did not instruct the people to hurl bombs and pelt stones.

"In his statement applicant further stated that....when the mob gathered then it became uncontrolled and thereafter he himself anyhow managed to escape from the spot," the bench pointed out. 

Accordingly, while stating that from the statement of the witnesses as well as Mohammad, it reflected that he told the people to gather, the bench held that "but from these statements, it could not be reflected that Mohammad either instigated or instructed them to commit violence".

Moreover, the bench stressed that though the statements of the accused persons recorded before police are not admissible, as stated by the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) they can be considered at the time of deciding bail application".

Conclusively, while stating that "it is a case of mob violence and at this stage, it can not be said that he was instrumental for such violence" the bench allowed Mohammad's bail plea. 

A local Court in Prayagraj denied Mohammad bail in the present case in August last year. The Additional Sessions Judge Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava had dismissed Mohammad's plea observing that after perusal of the case records, prima facie it appeared that the instant case was of “spreading communal frenzy” on a wide scale. 

Thereafter, Mohammad moved the present bail plea seeking release in the case which had been registered under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295A, 307, 332, 336, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120-B IPC, 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, 7 C.L.A. Act, 83 Juvenile Justice Act and ¾ Public Property Damages Act as well as 3 Explosive Substance Act in Kareli Police Station of Prayagraj. 

Case Title: - Javed Mohammad @ Pump v. State of UP