The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to a man sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for his alleged role in vandalising a house during a mob incident.
The Court observed that the violence appeared to stem from repeated complaints about illegal mining and stone crushing activities, which authorities allegedly failed to address.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan recorded its “anguish” over what it described as total inaction by the concerned authorities.
Court Flags Administrative Failure
The Bench noted that villagers had repeatedly approached authorities to stop illegal mining and stone crushing units. However, officials allegedly failed to act.
“Before parting, we notice that this case requires further action. The Court puts its anguish on record. Clearly, the present incident is the direct result of total inaction by the concerned Authorities, who were repeatedly approached to stop/check the illegal mining and Stone crushing units,” the Bench observed.
The Court directed the State to submit the names and designations of officers posted at the relevant time. It indicated that accountability may be examined further.
The judges also remarked that the matter did not appear to be an isolated instance.
Directions Issued to the State
The Bench directed the State’s counsel to place on record details of the officers who were in charge when the complaints were made.
It further directed the petitioner to file an affidavit. The affidavit must include material showing that illegal mining and stone crushing activities were operating in the area.
The Court observed that authorities did not even conduct preliminary verification of the villagers’ complaints. It noted that officials appeared to have remained “totally silent.”
Petitioner’s Submissions
According to the case record, the petitioner allegedly participated in vandalising the complainant’s house as part of a mob.
He argued that villagers had been protesting against illegal mining units operated by the complainant and others. He submitted that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment after authorities ignored repeated grievances.
The petitioner also stated that the complainant sustained only minor scratches. He claimed that police implicated him because he is the brother of the Sarpanch.
He further submitted that he has spent approximately one and a half years in custody. All co-accused have already received bail.
Bail Granted Pending Appeal
While granting bail pending appeal before the High Court, the Supreme Court noted the prolonged custody and the broader circumstances surrounding the incident.
The matter is titled PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – Mr. Namit Saxena, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondents – Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General, along with Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Bishnoi, Advocate; and Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Advocate-on-Record.
