Prayagraj Violence over prophet remarks: HC grants bail to prime accused

While granting bail to Javed, a Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception and bail cannot be rejected for punitive purposes”. Despite getting bail, Javed won’t be released from jail as his bail application is pending in two other cases.

The court said that “it appears that due to the aggression and activeness of the applicant people of his community gathered in large number and thereafter mob committed the violence”.

It said that the “applicant (Javed) does not appear to be instrumental for such violence”.

Police had claimed that Javed had called for a “bandh” and urged people to join him through WhatsApp messages.

A day after Javed’s arrest on June 11, the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) demolished his house after receiving a complaint about “illegal construction” on the property.

After considering the “entire evidence available on record”, it appears that it is a “case of mob violence and at this stage it can not be said that the applicant was instrumental for such violence”. “…neither in the FIR nor in the statement of any prosecution witnesses including the statement of police personnel, it has been alleged that applicant was either leading or he was instigating the people at the spot,” the court said.

As per the FIR, the accused persons had pelted stones on the vehicles of police party and set the vehicles on fire and also damaged the public property after Friday prayer. In the FIR 14 persons were named and more than 200 persons were unnamed. In the FIR, it was said that police personnel “had suffered injuries and due to the act of accused persons law and order was severely disturbed”.

Senior Advocate S F A Naqvi, who argued on behalf of Javed, told the court that allegations against his client were baseless. Naqvi said that Javed “is a social worker and he used to raise voice against atrocity and only due to this reason he was falsely implicated by the police in the present matter”.

He told the court that out of 11 cases against Javed, one case is under the Electricity Act and two cases are for violation of Covid-19 guidelines and one case is the present one. He told the court that the applicant in all the cases including the “present one was implicated only due to the reason that he is a whistleblower for his community and always raises voice against atrocities”.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, who argued on behalf of the state, “opposed the prayer for bail and submits that in the incident a number of police vehicles were damaged and applicant along with other accused persons promoted enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion and race”.