Difficult To Ascertain Whether They Were Mere Onlookers Or Real Culprits: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Men Accused Of Attacking 'Jhaljhoolni Ekadashi' Procession Passing Jama Masjid

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to several accused in incident of attack on 'Jhaljhoolni Ekadashi' procession noting that it's difficult to ascertain whether they were mere onlookers or the real culprits.

The Court was considering appeals by the accused persons under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Special Judge order whereby, their bail applications were rejected.

The single-bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed, "This Court further finds that presently, it is very difficult to reach to a conclusion as to whether the appellants were mere onlookers or the real culprits, particularly, when no case of similar nature is pending against the appellants. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail."

The appellants were represented by Advocate Bhushan Singh Charan and Advocate Usman Gani while the respondents were represented by Public Prosecutor Sharwan Singh Rathore, AGA Ravinder Singh Bhati and Advocate Moti Singh.

The appellants have been charged for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 131, 125-A, 190, 191(2), 191(3) 109(1), 196(2), 197(2), 299, 300 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per the prosecution, the appellants in a pre-determined manner without any provocation had thrown stones and had also beaten the members of a religious procession passing on the occasion of Jhaljhoolni Ekadashi which was passing through the religious place situated near Jama Masjid and also used casteist slurges against the members of the religious procession.

Per contra, the Public Prosecutor as well as the Counsel for the Complainant vehemently opposed the bail application contending that the appellants are responsible for spreading hatred against a particular community and causing hindrance in their peaceful procession in a predetermined manner

Counsel for Appellants submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and it is imperative on the part of the Investigating Agency to separate innocent persons from the real culprits of the incident. He submitted that though the possibility of the appellants being a part of the large number of people who had gathered to see the religious procession peacefully cannot be ruled out at this stage, the allegations that they uttered casteist remarks/slurges was levelled without any cogent evidence available on record.

He further submitted that in the alleged incident, the injuries allegedly caused to the members of the religious procession are simple in nature. He contended that in another FIR for similar offences, the appellants have already been enlarged on bail and they are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused appellants. The Counsel further submitted that looking to the seriousness and accusations levelled against the present appellants, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

The Court took into account the Counsel for Appellant's submission and also was of the view that in the given circumstances, it is very difficult to reach to a conclusion as to whether the appellants were mere onlookers or the real culprits, particularly, when no case of similar nature is pending against the appellants.

The appeals were accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Mujammil Sher and Ors vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:45759)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Bhushan Singh Charan and Advocate Usman Gani

Respondent-Public Prosecutor Sharwan Singh Rathore, AGA Ravinder Singh Bhati and Advocate Moti Singh.

Click here to read/ download Order: