AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through this petition prearrest 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 RFC with the allegation that on 1. 10. 2005 they formed an unlawful
assembly and attacked complainant's house with a preconceived intention of demolishing it for making a road on the land underneath\thereto.
Grounds pleaded in the petition are that petitioners who are otherwise innocent have been falsely implicated .even though they have not
committed any offence 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 Mohalla where they reside. His refusal to do the same ignited perpetual conflict between
petitioners and the complainant, which, at a particular time prompted the authorities to initiate proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. In
addition to that, the whole matter is subjudice before Munsiff, Budgain 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.
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 Budgain, who rejected the same.
I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. In view of the circumstances purported to have been collected by concerned police
during course of investigation as reported alongwith objections, petitioner's appear to be involved in certain offences against property and public
tranquillity committed during a some what organized unlawful activity, which, with its given intensity and magnitude almost boarders on lawlessness.
On cumulative appraisal of circumstances attending it, the occurrence neither appears to be a momentary reaction to an instantly developing
situations, or sudden provocations or Ann toward development, nor does it appear to be attributable to any error of judgment etc. On the
contrary, particularly in view of the felt that the petitioners assured presence of people on spot through an announcement on loudspeaker of local
mosque for attacking complainant's house despite the matter having been subjudice in the competent court of law, petitioners appear to have acted
as a band of self righteous persons having no regard for process of law and public order. Having willfully indulged in an organized criminal activity
they do not perhaps qualified to claim prearrest bail; chiefly for the reason that if allowed, the same is likely to encourage repetition of such
occurrences and send a very wrong and disappointing signal to the law abiding citizens who are already suffering the agonies of high handedness
from all sides. That factor 1 feel, has to be present to the mind of all courts while exercising power to allow anticipatory bail, and recommends
reluctance in granting it in the cases like present one. Besides that, instantly since offence under section 380 RFC is also involved, the police may
have to affect some recoveries etc., which makes custodial interrogation of accused necessary, and taken together with what has been said above,
it sufficiently agitates against grant of prearrest bail to the accused/ petitioners.
In the result therefore, the petition is dismissed with a direction to concerned police to proceed ahead in the matter with due speed but in strict
accordance with law and take all lawful measures to maintain the public order.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.