KANTA BHATNAGAR. J. — The seven petitioners along with a few others, out of whom five have already been arrested, are suspected miscreants of an incident said to have taken place in the intervening night of 17th and 18th September, 1981 at the Durgah of Nimba Nimbdi On the basis of the information lodged by Abdul Kayum on September 18, 1981, case under secs 147, 148, 307, 326 and 325 read with 149 Indian Penal Code was registered. Abdul Rahim, one of the injured, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the incident on Sept.21, 1981 and therefore, s. 302 Indian Penal Code was further added against the suspects. It is alleged that on Thursday the 17th Sept. 1981 the complainant and others had gone to Nimba Nimbdi Durgah and after Namaz were preparing for Ibadat when at about 11.00 P.M. about 20 or 25 persons, armed with axe, hammers, burchis and halwanis, entered the Durgah uttering Jai Bajrang Bali and started beating those persons The Muslims inside the Durgah tried to make good thier escape but all of them could not succeed and the rioters, besides giving a beating to them, damaged the articles of the Durgah and brokedown the religious pictures and threw them in the mud. Seven persons sustained injuries in that incident, one out of whom viz. Abdul Rahim became serious and expired on September 21, 1981 as stated above Five suspects have been arrested.

2. The seven petitioners, not yet arrested, have filed an application under Section 438 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this Court, contending therein that no case is made out against them and the persons, who are said to have named them in their police statements, neither knew them beforehand nor can identify them if a test identification parade is held. That, the investigation in the case is motivated by political influence and fabrication is writ large on the police record and therefore, the petitioners should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

3. It has been further contended that the five accused, since arrested, had immediately after their arrest prayed the Chief Judicial Magistrate that they were not known to the witnesses and their identification parade should be conducted immediately. The prosecution contested that application and he Magistrate rejected the same. Thereafter third degree methods were adopted by the police and they were shown to the witnesses prior to the identification parade. The petitioners apprehend the same fate. The petitioners therefore, have prayed for anticipatory bail and in the alternative submitted that they are prepare to surrender themselves before the Superintendent, Central Jail or before any Magistrate and direction may be issued for holding the identification parade immediately before the petitioners are put in custody. Request has also been made for direction for getting the test identification parade held even for the witnesses who have named the petitioners in their police statements.

4. On October 22, 1981, the Public Prosecutor was directed to give in writing as to whether the Investigating Officer is willing to request the Magistrate to hold the identification parade of the accused petitioners even by the witnesses who are said to have named them in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. On October 26, 1981, the Circle Officer, incharge of the investigation, in compliance to that order, submitted that naming the accused by the witnesses in their police statements, clearly indicates that they were knowing them beforehand That, the petitioners are absconding for a long time from their residence and despite efforts could not be arrested and therefore, proceedings under secs. 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated against them. That, some of the witnesses have not named the petitioners, rather have claimed to identify them on seeing them and therefore, identification parade for them was to be held. That, the weapons of offence are to be recovered from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document