NAZIR AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition pre -arrest bail is sought for petitioners, 22 in number reportedly involved in FIR No. 268 of 2005, registered in Police Station, Budgam under sections 452, 427, 380, 354, 336, 148 and 149 RPC with the allegation that on 1.10.2005 they formed an unlawful assembly and attacked complainants house with a preconceived intention of demolishing it for making a road on life land underneath thereto.

(2.) GROUNDS pleaded in the petition are that petitioners who are otherwise innocent have been falsely implicated even though they have not committed any of fence and that being poor law abiding citizens they deserve protection by way of Anticipatory bail. Police report furnished by the government counsel alongwith his objections reveals that the petitioners alongwith some other village dwellers have been pressing the complainant to demolish his house for making a public way to Baghat Mohallas when they reside. His refusal to do the same ignited a perpetual conflict between petitioners and the complainant, which, at a particular time prompted the authorities to initiate proceeding under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. In addition to that, the whole mailer is subjudice before Munsiff, Budgam who had on 30.9.2005 appointed a commissioner for spot inspection. On his arrival there the accused persons, besides preventing him from inspecting the spot, made an announcement from loudspeaker of the local mosque asking all the inhabitants to assemble for making the road, whereupon some people including the accused/petitioners assembled and attacked complainants house causing damage thereto and indulging in other unlawful activities.

(3.) DURING course of arguments while petitioners counsel have contended that in circumstances of the case the request for bail was well founded in fact and law, the Government counsel has argued that they are guilty of a serious unlawful activity and do not deserve consideration particularly because previously also they had filed a similar application before Sessions Judge at Budgam, who rejected the same.