Bareilly Violence | Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Involving Allegations Of Acid Attacks, Firing At Police Force

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad, however, disposed of the plea by observing that it is open to the petitioner to avail other legal remedies as may be advised.

The bench was essentially dealing with the plea filed by one Adnan, an accused in the violence case.

Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, assisted by AGA Paritosh Malviya, strongly contended that the attack on police force, which is enforcing law and order, constitutes a grave threat to the authority of the State and the rule of law.

The bench's attention was drawn to the gravity of the allegations which included attacks on police personnel with acid bottles, brickbats and firearms after a call for congregation was given by Maulana Taukir Raza.

Briefly put, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR wherein stringent provisions have been invoked under the BNS, including Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 124(2), 121, 125, 352, 351(3), 109, 299 and 223.

As per the prosecution's case, on September 26, Maulana Taukir Raza had given a call for members of a particular community to assemble at Islamiya Inter College in Bareilly.

Despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS being in force, a crowd of about 200-250 people gathered, proceeding from Maulana Azad Inter College towards Shyamganj Chauraha.

The crowd, holding boards and raising provocative slogans, paid little heed to the warning and persuasions made by the police personnel at the spot. The situation escalated when the accused persons became aggressive and they became adamant to proceed.

Thereafter, allegedly brickbats, stones and acid bottles were thrown at the police force from the accused persons in the crowd and gun shots were also fired from the crowd at the police personnel.

As per the FIR, in the ensuing violence, the clothes of police personnel were torn and two officers sustained injuries.

The allegations also add that the aggressive actions of the crowd created an atmosphere of terror in the area, forcing the police authorities to open fire in self-defence after failing to persuade the mob through rational discourse.

The State contended that offences of this nature can have cascading effects and if not dealt as per law can create a threat to public safety and order. Prima facie offence is disclosed against the petitioner.

The State relied heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark judgments in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra to argue that any interim relief at this stage may hamper the investigations.

Faced with these judgments, Advocate Ansar Ahmad, appearing for the petitioner, submitted to the Court that the petitioner does not wish to press the relief for quashing of the FIR.

Consequently, the relief sought for quashing was declined.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court for seeking appropriate remedies available under the law.