Justice N.J. Jamadar, presiding over a single bench, observed that the evidence against the accused did not strongly indicate a premeditated conspiracy to attack members of the convoy celebrating the event in January.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court granted bail to 14 Muslim men accused of participating in communal violence on Mira Road during celebrations for the Ram Temple consecration in Ayodhya.
Justice N.J. Jamadar, presiding over a single bench, observed that the evidence against the accused did not strongly indicate a premeditated conspiracy to attack members of the convoy celebrating the event in January.
The court noted that no CCTV footage established the accused’s involvement in assaulting the complainant or others. With the investigation concluded and the accused having deep societal ties, the likelihood of their absconding was deemed minimal. Additionally, considering their detention since January and the improbability of an early trial, the court found their continued custody unwarranted.
Initially denied bail by a Thane district sessions court, the accused were charged under various IPC and Arms Act provisions.
Police alleged they were part of a 50-60 person mob that raised slogans and attacked convoy members. However, the High Court highlighted the lack of prima facie evidence proving the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with a shared intent to commit violence.
READ ALSO: Bombay HC Directs Police: Ensure Peaceful Ram Navami Rallies, Change Mosque Routes
The bench further emphasized that the convoy’s presence in the area was coincidental, undermining claims of premeditation or conspiracy. Justice Jamadar concluded that with the guilt hinging on the accused’s identity as part of the mob, their prolonged detention lacked justification.
Earlier, The urgency of the issue was emphasized through a petition submitted by five Mumbai residents, including victims of the Mira Road violence.
They claimed that Maharashtra BJP MLAs Nitesh Rane and Geeta Jain, along with Telangana MLA T Raja Singh, not faced legal repercussions for allegedly promoting hate speech. Previously, the court had instructed police commissioners to assess video evidence of these speeches and decide on the necessity of filing FIRs.
Advocate General Saraf updated the court on the ongoing review by police commissioners, assuring a decision within a week regarding the necessity of legal action for hate speech. Additionally, the court assigned Saraf the responsibility of personally examining the speeches, emphasizing the importance of concluding any initiated actions definitively.
CASE TITLE:
Aftab Siddique v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
