The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two Muslim men who were booked in 2020 for attending a religious gathering at Delhi’s Nizamuddin Markaz, ruling they had been “falsely implicated” on mere “presumption.”
Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary passed the order last week while allowing a Section 528 BNSS plea filed by Faizan and a co-accused, quashing the chargesheet and proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
The case dates back to April 2, 2020, when the In-charge Inspector of Shahganj Police Station lodged an FIR alleging the two men had travelled to the Nizamuddin Markaz for a religious congregation and, on returning, were staying at home with their families without reporting their travel history. The FIR cited fears they may have contracted the coronavirus and could infect others.
According to the prosecution, the men admitted during questioning that they had attended the gathering. They were medically examined and sent to a quarantine centre, after which police registered the FIR under Sections 188, 269 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
The men’s coronavirus tests subsequently came back negative, a point the state’s counsel did not contest when the matter came up before the High Court.
Counsel for the applicants argued the FIR was based on unfounded apprehension and that the investigating agency had recorded statements from the complainant, police personnel and the examining doctor before filing a chargesheet in what the court called a “perfunctory manner.”
In its order, the court held that the case against the applicants rested entirely on suspicion rather than evidence. “The applicants have been falsely implicated in the case with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive and malafide intent and only on the basis of presumption and assumption,” the bench observed, adding that allowing the trial to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and law.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) in quashing the proceedings.
