The Mumbai Sessions Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Shri Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar denied bail to a 20-year-old boy for violating the curfew restrictions by playing cricket with six other boys without wearing a mask (Naved Qureshi v. State)
Facts of the case
The accused (Qureshi) and six other boys played cricket in the middle of the road. When the police approached them, the boys ran away but left their cell phones behind. When the boys returned to collect their phones, one of the officers had the accused phone in his hand. The accused tried to snatch the phone but ended up injuring the police officer’s hand.
The boys were booked for obstructing a public servant from carrying out his duty and were booked for offences punishable under Sections 353,332,333,143,147,188 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act.
As one of the accused was a juvenile, he was handed over to his family while Qureshi was arrested. The Metropolitan Magistrate rejected Qureshi’s bail application, and therefore Qureshi approached the Sessions Court for bail.
Contention of the Parties
The appellant denied committing any of the alleged offences whereas the prosecution contended that the accused along with some other boys was playing cricket in contravention of the guidelines issued by the State Government, however, the petitioner stated that such contravention attracts offences that are bailable in nature yet the provisions of Section 143 and 147 of IPC are deliberately applied to arraign the present applicant.
The applicant-petitioner further submitted that prima-facie provisions of Section 353 of IPC is not attracted and learned Metropolitan Magistrate has committed an error while rejecting the bail application since there is no case of the unlawful assembly to meet common object or to share a common intention.
Learned A.P.P strongly objected the application on the grounds that, the applicant has committed serious type of offence. If he is released on bail, applicant would again commit such type of offence and will threaten or pressurize the informant and witnesses. The applicant will abscond if released on bail and he will not attend in the court proceedings. On such grounds they have prayed to reject the bail application.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench noted that considering the situation of COVID-19 in the State, the police authority imposed Section 144 of in Mumbai city to control the situation. In such pandemic situation, the accused along with other boys was allegedly playing cricket that too without wearing a mask, is prima-facie contravening the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, is itself sufficient to hold the accused and other boys have formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to take law in hand and contravened the guidelines issued by the State Authority.
Thus, the learned Sessions Judge stated, “the applicant along with other boys have not adhere or respect the guidelines issued by the Authority in amidst of pandemic to control spreading COVID-19 and they have taken law in hand. Therefore, even if the applicant/accused would be released on stringent conditions, it will be serious menace to the general public at large as the applicant has not abide the guidelines issued by the Authority in this pandemic situation, which is surging in the State and the country.”
He also observed that “instead of following the directions, the accused alleged to deter the public servant from discharging his duty by applying criminal force.”
Therefore, the learned Judge took a strict stance and found that the accused violated the guidelines and also gathered together with other accused with a common intention and “disobeyed the orders of police causing endangering the life of public at large, I do not find any substance in the application to release the applicant/accused even on stringent conditions.”
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
