In City Like Mumbai, 1.30 AM Not Too Late; Wandering At That Time At Night No Offence : Mumbai Court
Acquitting a man arrested from a south Mumbai Street at 1.30 am, a Metropolitan Magistrates Court has held that wandering on the streets at 1.30am in a city like Mumbai, is not an offence. It would be an offence only if night curfew is imposed, the court added. "In the city like Mumbai, 1:30 am is not too late. Anyone can stand on near the road…Even if it assumed that 01:30 am...
Acquitting a man arrested from a south Mumbai Street at 1.30 am, a Metropolitan Magistrates Court has held that wandering on the streets at 1.30am in a city like Mumbai, is not an offence.
It would be an offence only if night curfew is imposed, the court added.
"In the city like Mumbai, 1:30 am is not too late. Anyone can stand on near the road…Even if it assumed that 01:30 am is too late then also wondering on the street is not an offence when there is no night curfew," Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Nadeem A. Patel observed.
"Admittedly there is[was] no night curfew in Mumbai therefore, if accused was standing on the road, it is not an offence," it added.
On June 16, 2022 the court acquitted 29-year-old Uttar Pradesh resident Sumit-kumar Kashyap, arrested three days earlier, from Cadbury Junction in south-Mumbai. The police accused him of sitting under suspicious circumstances between sunrise and sunset, hiding himself and his face without an explanation, and claimed he wanted to commit an offence. He was booked under section 122 (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Two witnesses were examined. First, the patrolling officer on night duty who arrested him, and second a panch witness.
The Magistrate acquitted the man for the follow reasons.
First, neither witness mentioned the offence the accused intended to commit. Merely saying that his explanation for being there was not satisfactory is "vague," the court said, adding, there was no clear information about what the police wanted to know from him either.
Secondly, just because the accused had tied a handkerchief around his mouth couldn't automatically mean he was hiding his identity. "It is the covid period and people use to wear the mask for safety purpose. If anyone is not having mask then they use handkerchief as a mask and if accused is using the handkerchief as a mask to covered his mouth it does not mean that he is hiding his identity," the judge said.
Finally, the bench observed that wandering on the streets and 1.30am was not an offence. The fact that the accused gave his real name to the police when he was questioned, showed his bonafides.
"Therefore, in my view on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution it is very difficult to hold that the accused was hiding his identity to commit an offence. Thus, prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," he bench held.