1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.237/2011 ( Abdul Latif Abdul Aziz Ansari & others ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Tahsil, Nagpur ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Jaiswal, Adv. for applicants. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 15.7.2011. 1. One saintly person by name Mustafa Baba having number of followers has place of abode in the locality called as Mominpura, Nagpur. On 28/6/2011 he died. The place where he used to sit was in front a dormitory called as Mohammad Ali Sarai. Over the issue of place of his burial, there was discontent amongst his followers and other group of the same religion. 2. On 29/6/2011 the dead body of Mustafa Baba was taken to Tajabad, a well known Shrine. However, the dead body was brought back to the premises of Urdu Primary School, Mominpura. In the ground of the school, the dead body was buried in the morning of 29/6/2011. 3. On the evening of 29/6/2011, number of persons gathered. They were armed with deadly weapons like swords, sticks etc. They were protesting over the act of burial of Mustafa Baba in the school premises. It is alleged that they caused damage to the property and also set on fire the 2 shed where Mustafa Baba used to sit and meet the people. On the basis of the report lodged by one Mohammad Asif offence bearing Crime No.141/2011, punishable under sections 143, 247, 248, 249, 336, 436, 427, 297 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act was registered at the police station Tahsil, Nagpur. 4. The applicants moved learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. He rejected the application on the ground that the involvement of the applicants in the serious offence is made out. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that none of the applicants was involved in rioting or breaking the law. Applicant no.1 is a Ex-Carporator , applicant nos.2 and 3 are the Social Workers and applicant no.4 is a Businessman. In fact, they are the Members of the Tanta Mukti Committee. They were interested in establishing the peace in the society and not creating law and order problem. He, therefore, prayed that discretion under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be exercised by granting them anticipatory bail. 6. With the assistance of learned A.P.P. the case diary has been perused. Reply filed by learned A.P.P. is also perused. 7. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. that the present applicants along with other accused persons with intention to disturb law and order and peace in the locality, armed themselves with deadly weapons and reached to the spot. He invited my attention to the statements of the witnesses namely Niyajbhai, Mohammad Rijwan, Mohammad Jamil and Mohammad Alam. It is spelt out from the statements of these witnesses that the accused persons along with others armed with deadly weapons were involved in the rioting 3 and they set on fire the place where Mustafa Baba used to sit. Therefore, amongst other offences, offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code has been added. 8. Because of the dispute over the issue of burial site of Mustafa Baba the area was put under curfew for many days. The evidence collected, prima facie, points out involvement of the applicants in rioting and committing offence of mischief by fire. Thus the applicants, amongst others, took law in their hands, which ultimately resulted in situation getting tense. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the anticipatory bail application. 9. Considering the gravity and nature of accusations and the role attributed to the applicants, I am not inclined to exercise discretion under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by granting them anticipatory bail. 10. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.