The Allahabad High Court in the case Mohd. Sajid v. State of UP observed and has granted bail to a student who spent around 5 months in jail in connection with the Prayagraj Violence case.
The bench comprising of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed and has ordered his release on bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount as per the satisfaction of the concerned court.
In the present case, the violence erupted in Atala on June 10 and its adjoining localities in Prayagraj after youths assembled in large numbers after Friday prayers for protesting against the controversial statements of BJP leader on the Prophet Mohammad.
An FIR was registered pertaining to this incident against 70 named and 5000 unknown persons by the UP Police alleging that the mob (comprising accused and other persons) raised objectionable and the inflammatory slogans against another religion, a riot committed, and the pelted stones and thereby damaging several properties and some police officials have sustained injuries.
On June12, Mohd. Sajid, the accused was arrested after the accused being booked under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 295A, 307, 332, 336, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 83 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act.
In the plea filled by the accused for his bail before the High Court, it was argued by him that he is not named in the first information report and had been falsely implicated in this case during investigation and without there being any credible evidence against him.
Further, while referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that his involvement in the alleged incident is highly disputed. Also, it was informed to the bench that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of the Court
Accordingly, the court granted him bail, after taking into account the submissions of the accused, the period of custody, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
