Difficult To Conclude If Accused Were Onlookers Or Real Culprits: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Men Accused Of Attacking Religious Procession

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to several men accused of beating, throwing stones and using casteist slurs at members of a religious procession, noting that it was difficult to conclude whether the men were mere onlookers or the real culprits especially since there was no similar case pending against them.

The court passed the order in two appeals filed by the appellants against the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, which had rejected their bail pleas.

After hearing the contentions a single bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur in its order said, "Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the investigation in relation to the cross FIRs is being conducted by the Investigating Agency. Prima facie there is a version and a cross-version of the incident which occurred on 14.09.2024".

It noted that the appellants had already been granted bail by the competent criminal Court in relation to one of the FIRs.

It thereafter said, "The injuries allegedly caused by the appellants to the members of the religious procession are simple in nature. 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".

It was the case of the prosecution that the appellants, in a "pre-determined" manner, without any "provocation", threw stones and also beat up members of a religious procession passing on 'Ekadashi' "through the religious place situated near Jama Masjid". It was further alleged that the appellants also used casteist slurs at the members. The counsel for the prosecution argued that the appellants are "responsible for spreading hatred against a particular community and causing hindrance in their peaceful procession in a predetermined manner".

On the contrary, it was argued by the counsel for the appellants, that there was a version and cross-version of the incident for which cross FIRs were filed. The counsel submitted that since the allegations of attacking the religious procession was against a group of people, it was imperative to separate the innocent persons from the real culprits of the incident. Because the possibility of the appellants being part of a larger group who had just gathered to see the religious procession peacefully could not be ruled out at this stage.

Taking into account the fact that there was a version and cross-version of the alleged incident and also that injuries allegedly caused by the appellants to the respondents were simple in nature, the court granted bail.

Case Title: Mujammil Sher & Ors. v State of Rajasthan and other connected appeals

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 342

Click Here To Read/Download Order