Mumbai, March 12, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai granted bail to multiple accused persons in three separate bail applications (Criminal Bail Application Nos. 482/2024, 483/2024, and 565/2024) related to a rioting and assault on public servants incident. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire allowed the bail applications, citing a lack of specific allegations against the accused and the availability of video evidence of the incident.

The accused were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 85 of 2024, registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty),¹ 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 341² (wrongful restraint), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others),³ 141 (unlawful assembly), 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 145 (joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse),⁴ 147 (rioting), and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal⁵ Code (IPC), along with section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amended) Act, 1932, and sections 37(1), 37(3), and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that on February 4, 2024, a large mob of approximately 900 to 1000 people gathered outside Ghatkopar Police Station, demanding the release of Mufti Salman Azhari, who had been taken into custody by the Gujarat State ATS Squad. When their demands were not met, the mob allegedly pelted stones at police personnel and the police station premises, causing injuries to 20 police officers. The incident was reportedly recorded on video.

Defense Arguments:

The defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated and that there were no specific allegations against them in the FIR or the prosecution’s reply. They claimed that the FIR was filed under pressure from senior officers and that the police had only arrested 21 people out of a mob of 900 to 1000. They also pointed out that three co-accused had already been granted bail on similar allegations, arguing for parity. They emphasized that no incriminating evidence was recovered from the accused and that the investigation was primarily based on video evidence and witness statements from police personnel.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail applications, arguing that the accused were part of a mob that intentionally obstructed public servants from discharging their duties and pelted stones at them. They emphasized the seriousness of the offense, the injuries caused to police officers, and the ongoing investigation to identify and apprehend other members of the mob.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Tapkire, after reviewing the record and submissions, noted the following:

• Lack of Specific Allegations: The court observed that neither the FIR nor the prosecution’s reply contained specific allegations against each individual accused.
• Video Evidence: The court acknowledged the availability of video evidence of the incident, which could be used to identify the perpetrators.
• Parity: The court noted that three co-accused had already been granted bail on similar allegations.
• No Recovery: The court observed that no incriminating evidence was recovered from the accused during their custodial interrogation.
• Limited Seizure: The court noted that the police had only seized 16 small stones and two pairs of footwear from the scene of the incident.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court acknowledged that the investigation was ongoing to identify and apprehend other members of the mob.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that further custodial detention of the accused was not necessary. However, given the seriousness of the offense and the ongoing investigation, the court imposed stringent conditions for granting bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to all the accused on the following conditions:

• Each accused must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹1,00,000 and furnish one or two solvent sureties of the same amount.
• The accused must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• The accused must report to Ghatkopar Police Station every Tuesday between 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
• The accused must attend all trial dates.
• The accused must not engage in any criminal activity.
• The accused must not leave India without prior permission from the trial court.
• The accused must provide their residential address and contact details to the police.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on specific allegations and evidence in criminal cases, particularly in cases involving large mobs and multiple accused. The court’s decision also reflects its consideration of parity and the availability of alternative evidence, such as video recordings. The court’s imposition of stringent conditions underscores the seriousness of the offense and the need to ensure the accused’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation.