STATE Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. by Delhi Administration, is directed against the revisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside a condition imposed by the trial Court, while granting bail to the respondent, restraining the respondent from entering the disputed place of worship and the question that the petition, interalia raises is as to the power of the Court under Section 437(3) of the Criminal P.C. to impose a condition, which may interfere with his fundamental right of personal liberty and to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petition was filed in the following circumstances : On July 18, 1983, a case under Section 147/148/149/353/332/186/30, I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, Delhi pursuant to First Information Report No. 354 following tension and rioting including use of brick-bats and soda water bottles, by groups belonging to two different communities in Lal Quan, Delhi, over the use of a place of worship by members of one community on the ground that it clashed with the corresponding right of the members of the other community in their place of worship, the bone of contention being that the timing of the performance of "Aarti" by members of the Hindu community in a temple in the area, known as Pracheen Shiva Temple of Hauz Qazi, clashed with the timing of the "Azan" by the Muslim community in the nearby mosque. It appears that the temple comprises of a platform where there is a Peepal tree, with idols of certain deities and Shivaling installed around it. It further appears that there is a covered well on the western side of the platform with a wooden "chhajja" around it. While the Hindu community claims the place to be a temple and that it has been used as such over the years, the claim of the Muslim community in the area is that the whole of the platform, including the part, over which the idols and Shivaling are installed, form part of Waqf property. No part of the platform is, however, used as a mosque but there is a mosque at some distance from the platform and there has been some controversy, even in the past, arising out of clash of timings between the "Aarti" performed in the temple and the timings of the "Azan" in the mosque. It further appears that a few days before the date of the occurrence, there was an informal settlement arrived at between the representatives of the two communities, who met under the auspices of the local police, in which the timings of the "Aarti" was fixed so as to avoid a possible clash of timings for the "Aarti" and the "Azan". It further appears that a Magisterial Inquiry has already been ordered which is apparently not yet concluded. While the Inquiry had been ordered earlier, the meeting in which the timing was fixed in the presence of the members of the two communities was held on the morning of the date of the incident following a controversy on the subject. The case was registered against 10 persons, 5 belonging to one community and the others belonging to the other. Respondent, Paras Ram Chawla, is among the 10 persons. All the accused persons were granted bail, some by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while the others by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. Out of 10 accused persons, those who were admitted to bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge were granted unconditional bail. Paras Ram, respondent, was granted bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on August 19, 1983, in the following terms :-

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge setting aside the condition, the Delhi Administration seeks its reversal and the restoration of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. When the petition was admitted on November 22, 1983, I granted an exparte stay of the operation of the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge thereby restoring the condition as I was told that any relaxation of the condition was likely to result in a communal flair up in the area, which has always been considered a sensitive one with potential of recurrence of communal tension and rioting over the years at the slightest provocation. Such a condition was also sought to be justified in the overall violence psychosis in the country. On January 20, 1984, I made the order absolute but subject to the condition that the petition must be disposed of at an early date.