The Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court granted bail to the accused in Jamshedpur Communal Riots and held that no specific role has been attributed to any of the appellants and it cannot be ascertained who was the aggressor between the two communities at this stage.
Brief Facts:
Communal clashes broke out in Jamshedpur wherein both Hindus and Muslims were found raising religious slogans and pelting stones. An FIR was lodged against 119 accused from both communities wherein it was stated that persons from the Muslim community had congregated at the mosque and were armed with deadly weapons and had committed riot after having formed an unlawful assembly. The present appeal was filed by the accused under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order of the trial court which refused to grant bail to the accused.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the allegations in the FIR were general and omnibus and no specific role has been attributed to any of the appellants. It was further contended that there was nothing on record to show how the informant came to know the identity of the appellants. It was further contended that the appellants had no intention to disturb the communal harmony as alleged in the FIR.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the place of occurrence cannot be denied as all the appellants had admitted that they were present there. It was further argued that since the riot was committed by the mob of two sects, it was not possible to identify every miscreant and general and omnibus role have been assigned to all the named and unknown persons who are not named in the FIR.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the evidence collected shows that none of the appellants were apprehended at the spot and the role assigned to all the named accused and unknown persons is general and omnibus and no specific role has been attributed to any of the appellants and only the presence of accused at the place of occurrence had been confirmed.
It was further stated that the evidence shows that people from both communities were pelting stones at each other. The court observed that from the FIR it was evident that it was the people from the Muslim community who were armed with weapons had intruded the temple but it cannot be ascertained who was the aggressor between the two communities at this stage.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the accused.
Case Title: Abhay Singh and ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.842 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.S Mazumdar and Mr. Indrajit Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sachin Kumar and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg
