Bail Application denied since 20 year old boy violated curfew restrictions and was not wearing a mask: Mumbai Sessions Court
The accused is 20 yr. old so he must know the critical situation of pandemic and should duly follow the guidelines issued by the local authority and police. Yet, he along with other boys took the law into his hands and failed to adhere to the guidelines issued by the State government to control the spread of COVID-19. So, he was denied bail since the learned Court believed that he could be a serious menace to society. This remarkable judgment was passed by the Sessions Court Mumbai in the matter of NAVED ABID QURESHI V The State [BAIL APPLICATION NO.1100 OF 2021] by Honourable Justice Shri Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar. This application was filed under Section 439 of CrPC wherein the accused has prayed for bail pertaining to C.R.No.81 of 2021 which was registered in J.J. Marg Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 353,332,333,143,147,188 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act. On 04.04.2021, the informant found some boys, playing cricket in the middle of the road by putting one wooden table. On the said table two mobiles were also kept. On seeing the police, the boys ran away leaving behind their phones. When they came back to retrieve their phones the informant told them he would take action against them as they have not wearing the mask. So, one of the boys twisted the informants’ hand and snatched the phone, and ran away. Later, the informant came to the police station and lodged a report vide C.R.No.81/2021 since he fractured his hand and the police then arrested accused Naved Abid Qureshi and after inquiry with him, his participation in the offence has been appeared and came to be arrested. However, custody of the 7-year-old accused was handed over to his father. The appellant denied committing any of the alleged offences whereas the prosecution contended that the accused along with some other boys was playing cricket in contravention of the guidelines issued by the State Government, however, the petitioner stated that such contravention attracts offences that are bailable in nature yet the provisions of Section 143 and 147 of IPC are deliberately applied to arraign the present applicant. The applicant-petitioner further submitted that prima-facie provisions of Section 353 of IPC is not attracted and learned Metropolitan Magistrate has committed an error while rejecting the bail application since there is no case of the unlawful assembly to meet common object or to share a common intention.   Considering the situation of COVID-19 in the State, the police authority imposed Section 144 of in Mumbai city to control the situation. In such pandemic situation, the accused along with other boys was allegedly playing cricket that too without wearing a mask, is prima-facie contravening the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, is itself sufficient to hold the accused and other boys have formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to take law in hand and contravened the guidelines issued by the State Authority. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge stated, “the applicant along with other boys have not adhere or respect the guidelines issued by the Authority in amidst of pandemic to control spreading COVID-19 and they have taken law in hand. Therefore, even if the applicant/accused would be released on stringent conditions, it will be serious menace to the general public at large as the applicant has not abide the guidelines issued by the Authority in this pandemic situation, which is surging in the State and the country.” He also observed that “instead of following the directions, the accused alleged to deter the public servant from discharging his duty by applying criminal force.” Therefore, the learned Judge took a strict stance and found that the accused violated the guidelines and also gathered together with other accused with a common intention and “disobeyed the orders of police causing endangering the life of public at large, I do not find any substance in the application to release the applicant/accused even on stringent conditions.”
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR.BOMBAY AT MUMBAI BAIL APPLICATION NO.1100 OF 2021 NAVED ABID QURESHI V s The Stateof Disaster Management Act It is the case of the applicant that he has nothing to do with the alleged offence and has not committed any alleged offence. On the contrary applicant has framed on the basis of concocted story. As per BA No.1100 2021 case of the prosecution the accused and other boys were playing cricket in contravention of the guidelines issued by the State Government and such contravention attracts offences which are bailable in nature. The complainant has not attributed any overt act to the present applicant Therefore provisions of Section 353 of IPC cannot be attracted. The provisions of Section 143 and 147 of IPC are deliberately applied to arraign the present applicant. From the FIR it is evident that no assault on public office has been carried out to obstruct in carrying out his public duty. Hence question of obstructing the public servant to discharge his lawful duty does not arise at all for alleged offence. It is further submitted by the applicant that prima facie provisions of Section 353 of IPC is not attracted. While rejecting the bail application learned Metropolitan Magistrate has committed error Learned Metropolitan Magistrate overlooked to appreciate that there is no case of unlawful assembly to meet common object or to share a common intention. Merely because other accused are absconding cannot be the sole ground for denying the bail to the present applicant All practical sort of investigation has been completed and applicant has cooperated with the investigating agency and nothing has to be recovered investigated at the instance of the present applicant. The applicant is ready to attend the concerned police station as and when required and cooperate the investigating agency. On such grounds applicant has prayed to release on bail on any such terms and Say of the concerned police station was called. PI Kiran Pawar vide Exh.2 has filed say through learned A.P.P and strongly objected the application on the grounds that the applicant has committed serious BA No.1100 2021 type of offence. If he is released on bail applicant would again commit such type of offence and will threaten or pressurize the informant and witnesses. The applicant will abscond if released on bail and he will not attend in the court proceedings. On such grounds they have prayed to reject the bail application. Heard both the sides. Perused the record and submissions. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.04.2021 at about 19.00 hours informant and PN No.4737 when on petrolling duty at Bara Imam Road Kachwala Building near U.P. Restaurant Don Taki Mumbai they found some boys were playing cricket in middle of the road by putting one wooden table. On the said table two mobiles were also kept. On seeing police the boys were trying to ran away from the spot. However police personnel stopped them and asked them to face the action as they were playing without mask. However the boys were able to run away. Therefore the informant picked the phone kept on the table. Due to which all the boys again came close to the informant At that time informant told them he would take action against them as they have not wearing the mask. At that time one of the boys twisted left hand of the informant and snatched the phone which was taken by the informant and thereafter all the boys ran away. Thereafter police inquired nearby and they came to know the names of the boys as Aasif Narpali who twisted the hand of the informant and other boys names as Farman Mujju Qureshi Naved Qureshi Mujahid Qureshi Junaid Bacchi and Kamran Shaikh. As informant’s left hand was twisted he has taken to Sir J.J Hospital for treatment and it was reported that the informant has BA No.1100 2021 suffered fracture. Thereafter informant came to the police station and lodged report vide C.R.No.81 2021. Thereafter police apprehended Mujahid Abid Qureshi. As he is found juvenile after completing formalities to be juvenile offender conflict with law his custody was handed over to his father. Thereafter accused Naved Abid Qureshi was arrested from Don Taki area and after inquiry with him his participation in the offence has been appeared and came to be arrested On going though the case papers and copy of FIR prima facie it appears the name of applicant accused in the FIR being a member of an unlawful assembly. Considering the situation of COVID 19 in the State particularly in Mumbai is spreading like mayhem. Therefore the police authority have imposed Section 144 of Cr.P.C. in Mumbai city to control the situation. In such pandemic situation the applicant accused along with other boys were allegedly playing cricket that too without wearing mask is prima facie contravening the provisions of Disaster Management Act is itself sufficient to hold that applicant accused and other boys have formed an unlawful assembly with an common object to take law in hand and contravened the guidelines issued by the State Authority. Though the applicant is 20 years old however he must have to know the situation of pandemic in city and to follow the guidelines issued by the local authority and police. As against what appears is that the applicant along with other boys have not adhere or respect the guidelines issued by the Authority in amidst of pandemic to control spreading COVID 19 and they have taken law in hand. Therefore even if the applicant accused would be released on stringent conditions it will be serious menace to the general public at large as applicant has not abide the guidelines issued BA No.1100 2021 by the Authority in this pandemic situation which is surging in the State and the country. Therefore I do not find it necessary at this stage to release the applicant on bail. The observations of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while rejecting the application on 09.04.2021 is appreciable that in this pandemic situation directions issued by the Government from time to time in stead of following the directions the accused alleged to deter the public servant from discharging his duty by applying criminal force that too cause serious injury which is cause fracture to the police constable while discharging his duty as such public servant. Therefore when applicant accused was prima facie found violating the guidelines of Authority in this pandemic situation and gathered together with other accused with an common intention and disobey the orders of police causing endangering the life of public at large I do not find any substance in the application to release the applicant accused even on stringent conditions. In view of above discussion and considering the factual aspects of taking law in hand by forming the unlawful assembly with the common intention to assemble at public place without wearing mask I do not find it proper to release the applicant accused on bail at this stage Hence application is liable to be rejected by following order : O R D E R Bail Application No.1100 of 2021 moved by applicant accused Naved Abid Qureshi pertaining to C.R.No.81 of 2021 registered with Sir J.J. Marg Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 353 332 333 143 147 188 of Indian Penal Code and BA No.1100 2021 under Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act stands Application stands disposed of accordingly Additional Sessions Judge (C.R.No.16 Gr.Bombay at Mumbai Dt.: 21 04 2021 Signed on BA No.1100 2021 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL 21.04.2021 at 14.42 hours UPLOAD DATE AND TIME KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A COURT ROOM NO.16 of pronouncement of Judgment order signed by P.O. on Judgment order uploaded on 