SYED MOINUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail.

(2.) Facts leading to this application are that on 20.12.2019 applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had joined the protest launched against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Registration of Citizenship Act (NRC) on 20.12.2019. The call of the protest was given by the ofce bearers of KUL JAMATE VIPHAK MILLI MUTTEHIDA MAHAJ MUSLIM ORGANIZATION. The protest had started at 2.30 p.m. from Iddgah Maidan, Parbhani. At the Shivaji statute the applicants and other protesters gathered holding green, black and blue fags and the banners in their hands. The protesters turned violent and they started blocking the trafc and started giving slogans against the Hon'ble Prime Minister and Hon'ble Home Minister. They started abusing police ofcers and other employees who were on duty. They caused damage to the vehicles of Fire Brigade. They also caused damage to the Medical Shops and hotels by pelting stones. In this melee, Police Naik Shri Madhav Dhande, B. No. 150 and police Constable Nile, B.No. 59 were injured. This protest was organized without obtaining prior permission from the concerned authorities. Therefore, FIR was lodged by the informant, PSI, Pallewad, on the basis of which ofences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 188 , 332 , 336 , 341 , 353, 427 of the Indian Penal Code , under Sections 3 , 4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act came to be registered against the applicants.

(3.) Shri Kazi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that contents of the FIR themselves disclose that custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary as nothing is to be recovered from them. He submits that none of the applicants were present in the protest. He further submits that he has sought CCTV footage to buttress these contentions but the same is not provided to him. He further submits that both the applicants have complied with the conditions imposed by this Court, while releasing them on interim anticipatory bail. He therefore, prayed for confrming the interim relief.