6 months ago
1
The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash an FIR related to the September 26 Bareilly violence.
A part seat comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prasad, successful an bid dated November 13, disposed of the plea filed by 1 Adnan, observing that the petitioner was escaped to avail different ineligible remedies.
The petitioner, named arsenic an accused successful the Bareilly unit case, had sought quashing of the FIR dated September 26 lodged astatine the Baradari constabulary station.
Also Read: What was down the ‘I Love Muhammad’ movement? | Explained
The writ petition was opposed by the State counsel, who argued that the charges against the accused – which see attacks connected constabulary unit with brickbats, acerb bottles and firearms – represent a sedate menace to the regularisation of law.
As per the prosecution’s case, connected September 26, Maulana Tauqeer Raza had allegedly fixed a telephone to members of a peculiar assemblage to assemble astatine the Islamiya Inter College successful Bareilly.
Despite prohibitory orders nether Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita being successful force, a assemblage of astir 200-250 radical gathered. The crowd, holding ‘I emotion Muhammad’ placards and raising slogans, allegedly ignored the directions of constabulary unit who tried to pacify the mob.
The concern escalated erstwhile the mob allegedly became assertive aft being stopped. Brickbats, stones and acerb bottles were thrown astatine the constabulary from among the assemblage and gunshots were besides fired, the FIR read.
In the ensuing violence, the apparel of constabulary unit were torn and 2 officers sustained injuries, it added.
The State counsel contended that offences of this quality could person cascading effects if not dealt with, and make a menace to nationalist information and order.
The State counsel cited respective Supreme Court judgments to reason that immoderate interim alleviation astatine this signifier whitethorn hamper the investigation.
After immoderate argument, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner does not privation to property the alleviation for quashing of the FIR.
Consequently, the alleviation was declined by the Court.
The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to attack the competent Court for seeking due remedies nether the law.
