Mob violence strikes at heart of constitution, says HC, grants bail to nine accused in Nagpur riots
Nagpur: Observing that mob violence strikes at the heart of constitutional order, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted bail to nine men accused in the Nagpur riots, while issuing caution against hate crimes and vigilantism.
Riots erupted on March 17 this year over a controversy surrounding Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district.
"Mobs cannot be allowed to take law into their own hands," noted Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while quoting Supreme Court rulings. "Nobody has the right to become a self-appointed guardian of law and forcibly administer his or her interpretation of law on others, especially not with violent means," the judge observed.
Quoting orders of the apex court in the Kodungallur Film Society's case, the judge described hate crimes as "a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice" and emphasised that such conduct must not be tolerated "lest it results in a reign of terror." She added, "extra-judicial elements and non-state actors cannot be allowed to take the place of law or the law-enforcing agency."
Petitioners Mohammad Iqbal Ismail Ansari and eight others were arrested in March and April this year in connection with the violence.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
2025년 가장 여유 넘치는 농장 게임. 설치 없음
Taonga: 아일랜드 팜
플레이하기
Undo
They were booked under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including rioting, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Maharashtra Defacement of Property Act, and the Maharashtra Police Act.
Defending the accused, senior counsel Avinash Gupta, along with advocates Naved Opai, Shreerang Bhandarkar, Atharva Khadse, Rafique Akbani and Syed Ateeb, argued that their clients were not individually named for any specific crime and the identification process was delayed.
Public prosecutors and senior counsel Deven Chauhan and Neeraj Jawade opposed the bail, stating the violence was premeditated and involved use of arms. They cited CCTV footage and video evidence to establish the accused were part of an unlawful assembly that injured police personnel and damaged property.
However, Justice Joshi-Phalke ruled that no specific role or overt act was attributed to any of the applicants and the delayed test identification parade diminished its legal weight.
"Considering that investigation is over, chargesheets are filed, and no further custodial interrogation is required, continued detention is unwarranted," she said.
Each accused has been directed to execute a personal bond of Rs1 lakh with one solvent surety. They must report to local police on the 1st and 15th of every month, avoid involvement in similar offences, abstain from influencing witnesses, and attend trial proceedings unless faced with extraordinary circumstances.
The petitioners were accused of forming an unlawful assembly at Bhaldarpura Square, armed with deadly weapons and stones, and attacking police personnel. They allegedly used petrol bombs and hurled abuses at the officers. They were further accused of molesting women police officers and constables. They also allegedly caused damage to public and police vehicles, as per the prosecution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC awards ₹5L to Ghaziabad man held in ‘prolonged custody'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹ 5 lakh as interim compensation to a man who remained in jail for nearly a month despite being granted bail, calling the episode a 'denial of constitutional liberty' and a 'travesty of justice'. The court also ordered a judicial enquiry into possible lapses by prison officials. The bench directed the PDSJ to determine whether the absence of a sub-clause in the order was indeed the real cause for the delay or whether gross negligence—or something 'more sinister'—was to blame. (Shutterstock) A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh expressed strong disapproval of the continued detention of the petitioner, calling it a 'denial of constitutional liberty'. 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It cannot be bartered on this useless technicality. We only hope no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of such technicality,' said the bench. The court was hearing a petition filed by Aftab, who had been charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. He had secured bail from the Supreme Court on April 29, followed by a release order from the trial court on May 27. However, he was not released, as the jail authorities refused to act on the order, citing the absence of a specific sub-section – Section 5(1), in the trial court's release directive. On Tuesday, the court summoned the Uttar Pradesh director general (prisons) to appear virtually and directed the Ghaziabad jail superintendent to be present in person. Representing the state, additional advocate general (AAG) Garima Parshad informed the court that Aftab had finally been released at 8.42pm on Tuesday, after a corrected release order was issued mentioning Section 5(1) of the 2021 Act. The bench, however, was far from satisfied. 'The whole episode, to say the least, is unfortunate,' the bench remarked in its order. 'Each stakeholder in the process was aware of the sections involved, the crime number, and the offences with which the petitioner was charged. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin.' Concerned that the delay might not be a mere bureaucratic lapse, the court sought a deeper investigation and questioned whether there was a 'vested interest' in keeping the petitioner in custody. While Parshad said that an internal enquiry had been initiated by the DIG Prisons, Meerut, the court insisted on a judicial probe. It requested the Allahabad high court to appoint the principal district and sessions judge (PDSJ), Ghaziabad, to investigate the circumstances that led to the prolonged detention. The bench directed the PDSJ to determine whether the absence of a sub-clause in the order was indeed the real cause for the delay or whether gross negligence—or something 'more sinister'—was to blame. The enquiry will also identify any prison officials responsible for the lapse. Parshad argued that jail officials had merely followed precedent, citing an Allahabad high court ruling that required release orders to mention all applicable provisions. But the Supreme Court dismissed this claim after reviewing the HC order. 'Contrary to what the AAG contends, the high court's ruling clearly states that if the bail order sufficiently mentions the case or sessions trial number, then no further detail is needed to release the prisoner,' it noted. 'For a non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days,' the bench noted. 'The only way to remedy the situation is to order an ad hoc compensation.' Accordingly, the court directed the state to pay Aftab ₹ 5 lakh as interim compensation, adding that the final amount would be determined after the judicial enquiry report is submitted. DG (prisons), appearing virtually, was directed to issue a statewide instruction to all jails to interpret release orders substantively rather than fixating on minor technicalities. The bench also recorded the DG's assurance that a broader review will be undertaken to identify other cases where liberty may have been wrongfully denied. Aftab had married a Hindu woman in January 2024 in a temple as per Hindu rites. On a complaint lodged by the woman's aunt, he was arrested on January 10, 2024, and subsequently charge-sheeted for kidnapping and for religious conversion through fraud. Following the release order, Aftab's family had approached prison officials to secure his release, only to be informed that the jail register entries did not match the provisions cited in the Supreme Court's order or the trial court's release direction. This prompted the present application before the top court.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC pulls up UP jail dept for violating liberty of a person; orders to pay ' Rs 5 lakh to man detained for month despite bail
NEW DELHI: Lambasting the UP prisons department for illegally detaining a man for 28 days despite his release on bail, Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the state to pay an interim compensation of Rs 5 lakh to him and ordered a judicial inquiry into lapses on the part of Ghaziabad jail officials. Taking a hyper-technical approach - the bail order mentioned Section 5 instead of Section 5(1) of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and the same typo was repeated in the additional sessions and district judge's release order of May 27 - jail authorities had refused to release Aftab, who had converted to Hinduism to marry a Hindu girl. With the director general (prisons) logged on virtually to the proceedings and jail superintendent Sitaram Sharma present in the courtroom, a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh said, "The whole incident to say the least is unfortunate. Each one of the stakeholders in the process was aware as to what the offence was, what the crime number was and the sections under which the man was charged with and the punishment section. " Noting that Aftab was released on Tuesday only after the SC took umbrage to denial of liberty based on a hyper-technicality, the bench said, "Aftab was sent on a spin and notwithstanding the order of the SC of April 29 (order of a bench headed by the CJI), and the release order of May 27 (by additional sessions and district judge), which is clear to us as daylight, the applicant has been released only on June 24. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 경고: 이 게임 진짜 중독성 쩔어요. 지금 해봐! Hero Wars 플레이하기 Undo "Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to a person under the Constitution. It cannot be martyred on these useless technicalities. We only hope that no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of similar technicalities. The DG (prisons) has assured us that no one will suffer because of such technicality in future and that he will sensitise the entire jail staff." The bench noted that UP prisons had 90,000 inmates. The SC asked the Ghaziabad district judge to complete the inquiry into the episode by Aug 18 and told the DG (prisons) to understand and implement the need to respect court orders and sensitise jail staff about the importance of liberty to ensure such incidents are not repeated. The bench said if it found from the inquiry that jail officials were at fault for delay in Aftab's release despite valid bail orders, it would impose cost on individual officers. It asked the UP govt to pay the compensation of Rs 5 lakh by Friday. UP's advocate general Garima Prasad informed the court that jail authorities had moved the trial court on May 28 for correction in the released order to include Section 5(1) of the anti-conversion law, but the trial court did so only on June 24, following which Aftab was released on Tuesday evening. The SC asked the state not to look for typographical errors in matters relating to liberty and said, "Otherwise, we (judges) in the SC will be doing proof-reading while most of the country will be behind bars."
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
HC directs Telangana to hold local body elections in 90 days
The Telangana high court on Wednesday directed the Revanth Reddy government and the state election commission to conduct the local body elections in the state within 90 days, people familiar with the matter said. A Revanth Reddy (PTI) A single-judge bench of the high court, headed by justice T Madhavi Devi, asked the state election commission to conduct the gram panchayat elections within three months and the state government to complete the delimitation of wards for reservations within 30 days. The term of the local bodies, including 12,845 gram panchayats, 5,817 mandal parishad territorial constituencies and 538 zilla parishad territorial constituencies, ended on January 30 last year, and since then, these local bodies have been under the administration of special officers. Acting on a batch of petitions filed by several former sarpanches, who challenged the inaction on holding the elections to the rural and urban local bodies, the judge asked why the state government and the state election commission had not acted in time. The petitioners argued that the government had appointed special officers to run the administration which, they said, was unconstitutional and against the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act. 'These special officers are preoccupied with other duties and are not responsive to local issues,' they said. They added that many sarpanches had used their personal funds for development, based on government assurances of financial support via the State Finance Commission. 'Now, these funds have not materialised, causing hardship. The central funds under various schemes have also not been received for want of elected bodies,' they said. The petitioners urged the court to direct immediate election proceedings or restore administrative powers to former sarpanches. Additional Advocate General Imran Khan argued that as per a Supreme Court ruling, elections can only proceed after finalising OBC reservations. He requested one more month to complete this process. Senior advocate G Vidyasagar, representing the state election commission, said that finalisation of reservations for the OBCs and delimitation of wards was the government's responsibility. Once the government completes it, the state election commission (SEC) would begin the process, which may take two more months, he said. The judge intervened and cited a Supreme Court directive, which said that if the government fails to act in time, the election commission should take the initiative and sought to know why the SEC had not done it. The SEC counsel reiterated that the government's delay in reservation and related groundwork was the core issue. After hearing all arguments, the court ruled that the gram panchayat elections must be conducted within three months.
