Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Inciting Public To Demolish Gyanvapi Masjid
The Allahabad High Court on January 4 granted anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of inciting the public to demolish the Gyanvapi Masjid.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused seeking bail in connection to the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) of the IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma said, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.”
The Bench further directed the accused to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-.
Advocate R.B. Singh appeared for the applicant/accused while a Government Advocate represented the State.
In this case, the counsel for the applicant submitted before the Court that nothing was done by the applicant but on account of political rivalry the FIR was lodged against Arun Pathak, President of Vishwa Hindu Sena. He further contented that the applicant was not named in the FIR but during the investigation his name was brought into light though there was no evidence to show the complicity of the applicant.
On the contrary, the counsel for the State opposed the anticipatory bail.
The High Court after hearing both the parties directed, “In the event of arrest of the applicant- Digvijay Chaube, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station …”
It was also ordered by the Court that the applicant shall make him available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
“The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. … In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant”, the Court further directed.
Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
Cause Title- Digvijay Chaube v. State of U.P.