The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Javed Pump, accused of being the “mastermind” behind the violence reported in Prayagraj and Saharanpur after the Friday prayers as people were protesting against remarks made by Nupur Sharma berating Prophet Mohammad. Justice Sameer Jain observed that since Javed does not appear to be instrumental for the violence, he can be granted bail.

On June 10, 2022 incidents of violence and slogan-shouting were reported in Prayagraj and Saharanpur after the Friday prayers as people were protesting against remarks made by Nupur Sharma berating Prophet Mohammad. On June 13, Prayagraj Development Authority demolished Javed Mohammad’s (Alias Javed Pump) house, who was deemed to be the “mastermind” behind the said violence. Javed has been booked under the National Security Act as well and hence, he will not be released from prison just yet; despite his bail.

As per the FIR, 14 persons were identified as accused and it was alleged that they pelted stones on the vehicles of police party and set the vehicles on fire and also damaged the public property after Friday prayer. It was further alleged that some police personnel were also injured and law and order was disturbed.

The applicant submitted that all allegations against him were false and baseless and that he neither participated in the violence nor was he instrumental in it. He further stated that among 200 unidentified persons, only 14 were named and it was clear that only well known persons in the locality were named. He further submitted that he is a social worker and he used to raise voice against the atrocity and only due to this reason he was falsely implicated. He also stated that there is no allegation particularly against him that he was instigating the mob or he was hurling bombs. Neither did the prosecution witnesses state that on his instigation, the mob committed violence. He also sought parity with other accused who have been granted bail in the matter. He also stated that in as many as 11 cases he was falsely implicated in the past and in all the cases he has been granted bail.

The Additional Advocate General opposed the bail and submitted that the act of the applicant was prejudicial to national integration and from the FIR itself it appears that applicant along with other accused persons tried to create terror among the common people and law and order was badly disturbed.

After perusing the FIR and the statements of witnesses, the court observed that general allegations were made against all the accused persons and that the applicant was either instigating the people or was leading the mob or he was having any weapon in his hand or was hurling a bomb or setting the vehicles on fire.

The court further held,

“Therefore, if we consider the entire evidence available on record including the statements of prosecution witnesses and statements of applicant and other accused persons recorded during investigation then it appears that it is a case of mob violence and at this stage it cannot be said that applicant was instrumental for such violence. It can only be said that he was instrumental for such a large gathering of people”.

The court also noted that many of the offences against the applicant were bailable and since there was no allegation that the applicant had any bomb or caused injury to police personnel, he cannot be denied bail merely because certain sections of Explosive Substances Act have been invoked. The court also considered that the applicant has 10 other cases against him registered in the past but he explanation for the same was already given where one case is of Electricity Act and two cases were of violation of Covid-19 guidelines and in all the other cases applicant is on bail.

While granting bail, the court held,

"Although, it appears that due to the aggression and activeness of the applicant people of his community gathered in large number and thereafter mob committed the violence but considering the fact that applicant does not appear to be instrumental for such violence and he is in jail, in the present matter, since 10.6.2022 and number of similarly placed accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, and also considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Satyendra Kumar Antil (supra) case, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail."

The court thus directed that Javed Mohammad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The order may be read here:

Related:

2022: A year of the ‘Bulldozer injustice’

“Bulldozer Injustice”: Time for courts to actively step in

Cases Against Prayagraj Activists for June 10 Violence Narrate Saga of Bias