Intro Summary
The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, presided over by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire, has granted bail to nine applicants across three common applications (B.A. 515, 526, and 527 of 2024). The case stems from a serious incident where a large mob allegedly gathered outside Ghatkopar Police Station to protest the detention of a religious scholar, Mufti Azhari, resulting in 20 police personnel being injured by stone-pelting. Despite the seriousness of the charges (including Sections 353, 332, 333 IPC, and rioting sections), the Court observed that the allegations against the applicants were “similar, common and general in nature” and noted that only 16 small stones and two pairs of chappals/shoes were seized, suggesting the investigation had gathered most of its evidence. Relying on the principle that further custodial detention was not “essential necessary,” the Court allowed bail subject to a hefty bond and stringent reporting conditions.
Prosecution’s Arguments and Case Details
The case, C.R. No. 85 of 2024 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, involves serious charges related to a mob attack on public servants, including Sections 353, 332, 333 (Assault/Obstruction to deter public servant from duty), as well as various rioting sections (141, 143, 145, 147, 149) of the IPC.
- Incident: On February 4, 2024, approximately 1000 followers of Mufti Azhari gathered outside the police station demanding his release.
- Violence: When police did not comply, the mob started pelting stones, resulting in injuries to 20 police personnel and officials.
- Evidence: The State submitted that the entire incident was video-recorded, and through technical investigation, they had arrested 21 culprits whose “attributed role transpired clarified.”
- Objection: The prosecution strongly opposed bail, arguing that the attack on public servants while discharging official duty, aimed at creating pressure and terror, was a “seriously considerable cognizable circumstance.”
Defense’s Arguments
Advocates Mubin Solkar, Tahir Hussain, Tausif Ansari, and Usman Shaikh appeared for the nine applicants, raising a collective argument for liberty:
- Parity: They submitted that 12 co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, entitling the present applicants to the same relief.
- General Allegations: The allegations against all applicants were “similar common and general in natures,” implying specific, individualized roles were lacking.
- Lack of Evidence: They argued that the low quantity of seized evidence—just 16 small stones and two pairs of chappals/shoes—when the FIR alleged a huge mob, revealed an “unwarranted conduct demeanour of the respondent/state” in arresting them without sufficient proof.
- False Implication: The applicants vehemently submitted they were not involved in the incident.
Court’s Analysis and Rationale (H.H. Addl. Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire)
The Court undertook a cautious review, balancing the severity of the alleged offense (attacking police personnel) against the facts revealed by the investigation record.
- Role Assessment: The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s serious objection regarding the attack on public servants and the 20 police injuries. However, it was influenced by the fact that the allegations against the applicants were “similar in natures” to those of co-accused already released.
- Evidence Discrepancy: The Judge pointedly noted the contradiction between the claim of a 1000-person mob and the meager evidence seized at the spot: “just collected seized small 16 stones and two pairs of chappals and shoes.”
- Investigation Concluded: The Court also observed that the investigating machinery had been given “sufficient considerable time to investigate clarify the most material relevant concern facts.”
- No Need for Custody: The Judge ultimately concluded that, in view of the nature of the allegations and the limited requirement for further investigation or detection of other involvers, “further custodial detention of any applicant would not essential necessary for any considerable reason cause.”
The Court granted bail to all nine applicants, imposing stringent conditions to secure their presence. Each applicant was released on executing a P.R. Bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. Key conditions included:
- Mandatory Reporting: Applicants must record their attendance with Ghatkopar Police Station every Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. until the charge-sheet is submitted.
- Non-Interference: They must not tamper with or hamper prosecution witnesses and evidence.
- No Criminal Activity: They shall not indulge in any criminal activity.