Rajasthan High Court grants bail to men accused of attacking the ‘Jhaljhoolni Ekadashi’ procession near Jama Masjid, making it hard to tell if they were just bystanders or actual offenders.
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to several individuals involved in the attack on the ‘Jhaljhoolni Ekadashi’ procession, stating it is hard to determine if they were just bystanders or the actual offenders. The Court reviewed appeals from the accused under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after a Special Judge denied their bail requests. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, in a single-bench ruling, noted that it is currently challenging to conclude whether the appellants were simply onlookers or the true perpetrators, especially since there are no similar cases against them. Therefore, without commenting on the case’s merits, the Court decided to grant them bail.
The appellants were represented by Advocates Bhushan Singh Charan and Usman Gani, while the prosecution was represented by Public Prosecutor Sharwan Singh Rathore, AGA Ravinder Singh Bhati, and Advocate Moti Singh. The appellants face charges under various sections of the BNS and the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the prosecution, the appellants allegedly threw stones and assaulted members of the religious procession during the Jhaljhoolni Ekadashi celebration, which took place near Jama Masjid, and also used caste-based insults against them.
The Public Prosecutor and the Complainant’s Counsel strongly opposed the bail request, arguing that the appellants are responsible for inciting hatred against a specific community and disrupting their peaceful procession. The Counsel for the Appellants claimed that their clients have been wrongly accused and stressed the need for the Investigating Agency to distinguish innocent individuals from the actual offenders. They noted that while the appellants might have been part of the crowd watching the religious procession, the claims that they made casteist remarks lack solid evidence.
Additionally, the Counsel pointed out that the injuries reported from the incident were minor. They mentioned that the appellants had already been granted bail in a similar case and are currently in judicial custody, suggesting that the trial could take a long time. Therefore, they argued that the appellants should be granted bail. However, the Counsel also acknowledged the seriousness of the accusations against the appellants, stating that they may not qualify for bail. The Court considered the arguments from the Counsel for the Appellants and found it challenging to determine whether the appellants were simply bystanders or the actual offenders, especially since there are no other similar cases against them. Consequently, the appeals were granted.
Cause Title: Mujammil Sher and Ors vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:45759)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Bhushan Singh Charan and Advocate Usman Gani
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sharwan Singh Rathore, AGA Ravinder Singh Bhati and Advocate Moti Singh.
