Rajasthan High Court
Syed Gohar Husain Chisti Son Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13841/2022
Syed Gohar Husain Chisti Son Of Syed Safadar Chisti, R/o
Shakoor Building Chhota Chowk, Khadim Mohalla, Police Station
Dargah, Ajmer At Present House No. 18/158, Diggi Bazar
Sodagar Mohalla, Police Station Kotwali, Ajmer (At Present
Confined At Central Jail Ajmer)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. S.S. Hasan, Senior Adv. with Mr.
Fahad Hasan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghan Shyam Singh Rathore, GA-
cum-AAG with Mr. S.S. Mehla, PP
and Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
30/09/2022
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section
439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant
was arrested in connection with FIR No.162/2022 registered at
Police Station Dargah District Ajmer for the offence(s) under
Sections 506, 504, 188, 149, 143, 117 and 302/115 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant is a Khadim in Ajmer who was rendering his religious
and pious duties before the Garib Nawaz. In the case at hand, the
applicant was arrested on 15.07.2022. The charge-sheet has been
filed. He has submitted that a peaceful procession was carried out,
in protest of the inflammatory statements made by BJP
(2 of 6) [CRLMB-13841/2022]
spokesperson Nupur Sharma, with due permission and the protest
took place only after lawful permission was granted by the State
as well as the police authorities. Learned counsel further
submitted that FIR was filed at a belated stage, after a delay of
seven days and it was originally registered for bailable offences
only. It is contended that only on account of pressure by the
media, the State made improvements to the FIR by adding
provisions of Section 302/115 IPC, which are non-bailable in
nature. It is also contended that these provisions were added
without any evidence whatsoever. Learned counsel further
submitted that it is in this background, that the applicant was
arrested along with other co-accused and that the co-accused, on
a similar set of facts & circumstances, have been enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel submitted that the statement of Nupur Sharma
affected the public at large and hurt the religious sentiments of
the community and in protest of the same, a peaceful procession
was carried out with due and lawful permission. He further
submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the
matter and has been in custody for over two months. Learned
counsel also submitted that the statement of applicant was
recorded after a delay of two months. Learned counsel further
submitted that the applicant should be released on humanitarian
grounds as his wife is 8 months pregnant, his father is old & ailing
and he is the sole bread earner of his family.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant
has no role to play in the Udaipur and Amravati murder cases, nor
is he a party in the said cases. The allegations qua him are limited
to raising slogans, for which provisions of Section 302/115 cannot
be attracted. In support of his claim, he has relied upon Hon'ble
(3 of 6) [CRLMB-13841/2022]
Apex Court judgment of Balwant Singh and Ors. vs. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC 1785 wherein the Apex Court
has held that raising slogans by lonesome persons would not
tantamount to abetment of the alleged crime.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that the case of the present accused-applicant is highly
distinguishable from the co-accused who have been enlarged on
bail. He contended that the applicant is a habitual offender and his
case is on a different footing from the case of the co-accused who
have been enlarged on bail as neither were the co-accused named
in the FIR nor were any specific prohibitory orders issued against
them in the past. He submitted that the permission was granted
by the State only for a "peaceful procession". The permission order
dated 16.06.2022 itself contained the terms and conditions which
were to be followed and the relevant aspects are reproduced as
under:-
dk;kZy; vfrfjDr ftyk dyDVj ,oa vfrfjDr ftyk eftLVªsV ¼'kgj½
vtesj
4- vk;[email protected];ZØe ds nkSjku dkuwu] 'kkafr] lqj{kk] lkSgknzZ ,oa
;krk;kr O;oLFkk cuk;s j[kus esa iz'kklu dk iw.kZ lg;ksx fd;k tkosA
dk;kZy; ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd] vtesj
5- tqywl esa dksbZ mRrstukRed ;k fdlh Hkh /[email protected]; dks Bsl
igqWpkuh ukjsckth ugha dh tkosA ^
Learned AAG submitted that vide order dated 20.06.2022, a
complaint was presented to the accused-applicant under Section
108 read with Section 116(3) for raising slogans ^^xqLrk[kh uch
(4 of 6) [CRLMB-13841/2022]
dh ,d ltk] flj ru ls tqnk] flj ru ls tqnk** Learned AAG has
submitted that the FIR was registered on account of the fact that
the conditions of permission were flouted and provocative and
religiously charged slogans were raised before a crowd of
approximately 3000 persons. He further submitted that video clips
of such slogans were widely circulated online which in effect led to
the unfortunate incidents at Udaipur and Amravati, wherein the
victims were beheaded on account of religious hatred promulgated
by such slogans and therefore, provisions of Section 115 read with
Section 302 were also added in the FIR. Learned AAG also
submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents and two
cases are presently pending against him. It is further submitted
that the accused-applicant is a habitual offender and every year,
as a precautionary measure, prohibitory orders are issued against
him to maintain peace and communal harmony. He further
submitted that the applicant was arrested from Hyderabad and his
tickets were sponsored by third-parties. Further, several mobile
phones and CD's were recovered from possession of the accused-
applicant. Learned AAG contends that the offence is heinous in
nature and if the accused-applicant is enlarged on bail, there is a
high possibility that there will be a persistent threat of communal
disharmony and violent protests, which will have wide spread
effects and ramifications.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides,
scanned the record and considered the judgment(s) cited at Bar.
6. On the analysis of permission order given by the
administration and police authorities dated 16.06.2022, it is
observed that the permission was granted to raise protest by way
of a "peaceful procession" on the specific condition that the law
(5 of 6) [CRLMB-13841/2022]
and order will be maintained and that no provocative religious
slogans would be raised. In spite of the same, the applicant
arranged for mics and loudspeakers and raised religiously charged
slogans before a crowd of 3000 people that were provocative,
vindictive and motivated in hate speech. Moreover, the applicant is
alleged to have been actively involved in the incident as the
mastermind. In contravention of the categorical directions of the
police authorities, the law and order was put in jeopardy and
communal discomfort was caused through out the country,
including certain unfortunate incidents at Amravati and Udaipur.
7. The alleged recovery of multiple mobile phones and the
fact of active arrest of the applicant made from another State
further reflects the alleged active participation of the applicant.
The prohibition orders passed in the case of the applicant, on a
yearly basis under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., also distinguishes the
case of the applicant from the co-accused who have been enlarged
on bail and further reflects his criminal antecedents. The Hon'ble
Apex Court judgment of Balwant Singh (supra), relied upon by
the applicant is on a completely different footing. The slogans
raised in the said case were of a different nature and they were
not provocative, motivated, vindictive and lonesome towards the
abetment of crime as per the slogan raised. Learned AAG had also
submitted that on account of the said slogans, certain victims
were beheaded at Udaipur and Amravati. Considering the above, it
cannot be ruled out that if the applicant is released on bail, he can
pose a threat to the society at large and affect the law and order
situation in the State.
8. Therefore, considering the arguments advanced by both
sides, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case
(6 of 6) [CRLMB-13841/2022]
but without commenting upon merits/demerits of the case, and for
the above-stated reasons, this court is not inclined to allow the
present bail application at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the criminal misc. bail application is
dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Arun/79
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
