Srinagar Court Rejects Interim Bail Application of Facebook Page Admin Mudasir Aziz ‘surrender within next three days’

Srinagar Court Rejects Interim Bail Application of Facebook Page Admin

Asif Iqbal

Srinagar, Apr 29 (GNS): Found violative of terms and conditions vis-a-vis grant of interim bail application, the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on Monday directed a Facebook page admin to surrender within next three days before the agency investigating the case.

Disposing off an application filed by the accused under section 438 CrPC, the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srinagar had on March 22, 2024 admitted interim-bail to the accused Mudasir Bashir, who is passing himself as Mudasir Aziz on social-media, on certain conditions which included that, “the applicant/accused shall make himself available for law interrogation before the I/O as and when required; that the applicant/accused 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer/I.O; that the applicant/accused shall not leave the territorial limits of the UT of J&K without prior permission of this Court.”

The concerned police station in the meantime was directed to file the report and the applicant was also directed to file the objections.

The Court remarked that the concerned police station has filed the report which reveals that on 17th of March, 2024, Mst. Masrat Bano D/O Ghulam Rasool Sofi, who is running the NGO namely Smile Foundation, has submitted a report averring therein that she was collecting the donation for a Cancer patient in the area of Kalwal Mohalla, Rainawari and in the meanwhile, a journalist namely Mudasir Aziz, stopped her Van bearing registration No. JK01J/7853 and didn’t allow them to move in any direction. He touched such parts of her body which are not allowed and outraged her. He misbehaved with her and in public outraged her modesty and stopped her performing her lawful duty. He threatened to cause her death.

“On this report, police have registered a case under FIR No. and offences mentioned above and started the investigation.”

“During the course of investigation, a site map has been prepared, video footage of the occurrence was obtained in a pen drive and the accused was found guilty of the offences mentioned above and the accused was released on anticipatory bail order issued by this court. The cell phone of the accused was seized, however, the accused refused to disclose the password of the cell phone. Accused has not cooperated with the investigation. Time and again, he was called by the police station but he never appeared before the police station. He has also intimidated the witnesses, as such, witnesses are dismayed and has failed to cooperate with the further investigation of the case. They need physical custody of the accused as he has not cooperated with the investigation and his physical custody is necessary for completion of the investigation,” remarked the Court.

“Police have also filed a detailed fresh report wherein they have prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail on the grounds mentioned in the report. Learned App has filed the objections and has resisted the application on the grounds inter-alia that the offences in which the accused is involved is grave and non-bailable in nature, as such, accused is not entitled to the concession of bail in anticipation. There is credible and cogent evidence available viz-a-viz involvement of the accused in the commission of crime, as such, the evidence gathered by the investigating agency to be preserved till commencement of regular trial before the competent court of jurisdiction, as such, the bail merits rejection at this stage. Lastly, he has prayed that the bail application preferred by the applicant may be rejected in the interest of justice.”

“As per police report, the accused is involved in the commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 341, 442, 506 & 392/IPC and FIR No. 08/2024 has been registered against the applicant/accused,” remarked the Court.

“Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the applicant/accused is law abiding citizen and is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The alleged offences are bailable except offence u/s 354/IPC and the same offence carries punishment of 05 years. The applicant/accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions, if imposed by the court and he has prayed that the interim bail granted vide order dated 22/03/2024 be made absolute.”

“On the other hand, Ld. APP has argued that the applicant/accused is involved in non-bailable offence and, as such, he is not entitled to claim bail as a matter of right. As per police report, the applicant/accused has violated the terms and conditions of interim bail and he has not cooperated with the investigation and is misusing the concession of bail. He further argued that during the investigation & on the basis of evidence, the offence u/s 392/IPC has been added which carries the sentence of 10 years & fine, as such, the accused is not entitled to bail in anticipation,” the Court remarked.

“Police report on record reveals that the applicant/accused has not cooperated with the investigation and has not presented himself before the police station in spite of repeated requests, due to which investigation of the case has been hampered. The applicant/accused has also intimated the witnesses and has refused to cooperate with the investigation. It is further alleged that during the investigation, the cell phone of the applicant/accused was seized, however, the applicant/accused refused to give the password of the cell phone.”

“The interim bail order dated 22/03/2024, reveals that the accused/applicant was enlarged on interim bail subject to the conditions, that he will make himself available for lawful interrogation before the I.O as and when required and that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat to the prosecution witnesses. As per the police report, the applicant/accused has violated the terms and conditions of the interim bail which has hampered the investigation of the case. The interim bail was further subject to the conditions that the offence is not against the women folk & should not carry the sentence of more than 07 years, but the police report reveals that he has tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant and is found guilty of offence u/s 392/IPC which carries the sentence of 10 years and fine,” remarked the Court.

“…it is clear that the applicant/accused has violated the terms and conditions of interim bail order dated 22/03/2024 and has tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant,” remarked the Court adding, he (accused) has not cooperated with the I/O, which has hampered the investigation.”

“He (accused) is also alleged to have committed the offence u/s 392/IPC, which carried the sentence of 10 years and fine. Therefore, the application in hand for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest is refused and is rejected accordingly. The applicant/accused is directed to surrender before the investigating agency within three days. The interim bail order dated 22/03/2024 stands cancelled,” the Court ordered. (GNS)