Jignesh Mevani Bail Order | Gauhati High Court Stays Assam Court's Observations Against State Police; Benefit Of Bail To Continue
The Gauhati High Court has put a stay on the observations made by the Assam Court against state police while granting bail to Independent Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani in the case of alleged assault on a policewoman. However, the order granting him the benefit of bail has not been interfered with.This order came from the bench of Justice Devashish Baruah on an appeal moved by the State...
The Gauhati High Court has put a stay on the observations made by the Assam Court against state police while granting bail to Independent Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani in the case of alleged assault on a policewoman. However, the order granting him the benefit of bail has not been interfered with.
This order came from the bench of Justice Devashish Baruah on an appeal moved by the State against Sessions Judge, Barpeta: A. Chakravarty.
Issuing notice in the matter, the Court has clarified that its order is limited to putting a stay on the observations made by the District Judge and that the order granting benefit of bail to Mevani shall continue to operate.
Speaking to Live Law, Mevani's Lawyer, Senior Advocate Angshuman Bora confirmed that two of the observations made by the District Judge in his order have stayed. One, where the Court had observed the case against Mevani was manufactured, and second, where the Judge has referred the matter to the HC to consider directing the Assam Police to reform itself by taking some measures.
It may be noted that the Barpeta Court last Friday granted bail to Independent MLA Jignesh Mevani in the case of alleged assault on a policewoman after noting that the instant case was manufactured for the purpose of keeping Mevani in detention for a longer period, abusing the process of the court and the law.
The Sessions Judge, Barpeta A. Chakravarty had further Gauhatirequested the Gauhati High Court to consider directing the Assam Police to reform itself by taking some measures like directing each and every police personnel engaged in law and order duty to wear Body Cameras, to install CCTV Cameras in vehicles while arresting an accused or taking an accused to someplace for the discovery of some articles and for such other reasons and also to install CCTV Cameras inside all the police stations.
In its Order, the Court had requested the HC thus, as it noted that the version of the policewoman in the instant case wasn't trustworthy and rather it was an attempt to keep the accused in detention for a longer time.
"Otherwise, our State will become a Police State, which the society can ill afford. Even opinion is growing in the world for providing next generation human rights to the people in the democratic countries like, right to recall an elected representative, right to destabilise an elected government, etc. therefore, converting our hard earned democracy into a Police State is simply unthinkable and if the Assam Police is thinking about the same, the same is peruerse thinking," the Court observed as it requested the Chief Justice to consider whether the matter may be taken up as a Public Interest Litigation to curb the ongoing police excesses in the State.
Case against Mevani
Mevani was arrested by the Assam Police from Gujarat on 20 April in an FIR registered on a complaint by a local BJP leader from Assam's Kokrajhar on account of making several tweets against PM Narendra Modi.
Thereafter, he was re-arrested in the instant case for allegedly assaulting officials. The second arrest was made after Mevani was granted bail in the case related to tweets against Prime Minister.
The Policewoman alleged in the FIR that while she was escorting Mevani from LGB Airport, Guwahati to Kokrajhar in a government vehicle, Mevani uttered slang words against her. Allegedly, Mevani pointed his fingers toward her and tried to frighten her, and pushed her down into her seat with force.
It was therefore alleged that Mevani assaulted the first informant while she was discharging her duties as a public servant and outraged her modesty by touching her inappropriately while pushing her down.
After reaching Kokrajhar, the first informant informed them about the incident to her senior officers, however, her seniors did not register an FIR, which, the Court noted, was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Thereafter, the Barpeta Road Police registered the FIR under Sections 294, 323, 353, and 354 of IPC. The Court termed it as a second FIR as it noted that the first FIR would be the narration of facts by her before her seniors. Now, challenging this 'Second' FIR, Mevani had moved to the Court.