Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.
Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.
“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.
In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.
‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’
Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.
“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.
In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.
“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.
The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.
Comments
It is Allah's command that Women should not be prevented from going to Mosque. In the time of prophet muslim women were encouraged to mosque and listen to friday sermon even if they have periods. Please remember this Surah 22.25. Where Allah state he will punish people who keep belivers from Mosque. PLEASE TRY TO SEPERATE CULTURE FROM ISLAM. If want to stay out of hell
Well said, brother shaji
@ Nida Madam.
Even in makkah & Madina there is separate facility for men and women. Some people do break this restriction, they mingle and stand for prayer. This has to be dealt by the authorities of Haram. If they fail to control this, it doesn't m
Mr Mohammed, Mangalore!
So, in your family, ladies dont perform hajj? if they perfom whether they enter masajid in makkah, madinah and other place or not ?
rightly said Brother muhammed Manglore
It is highly advisable for ladies to pray at home but it doesn't meant that they cannot pray in Masjid.....depending upon the circumstances...
Wa Fantastic Movement.
Chief Minister Hat off.
Declining Muslim women for praying in Masjid is not correct. they should be allowed to pray there but a separate place should be allocated to them as Women are not allowed to mix with men while praying. Nowhere men and women pray together. there is separate place for women everywhere. It is not right that Islam does not allow women to pray in the Masjid. People who are forcing women to allow in the Masjid are either hypocrites or less educated. As per the Sharia, her own house is more important to a woman than a Masjid. Praying by woman in the house is more acceptable than praying in the Masjid unless she is in the Market or in journey. Every Masjid should have separate place for women to pray and none should object it. However, it is useless for fighting for entry of Woman in Masjid as it is useless. those who are forcing woman entry in the masjid are non muslims or visiting masjid once in a week and on Eid days. I dont think an educated and well known Muslim woman will fight for her entry in the Masjid as she will prefer to pray in the house which is more acceptable in Islam. I request hypocrites not to waste time in unnecessary things and try to follow Islam correctly. Dont be followers of Iblees and put yourself in Jahannum.
women praying place called prayer room (musallah nisa) and for men it is called mosque (masjid).
Add new comment