Delhi: In the one year since the Uttar Pradesh police arrested social activist Javed Mohammad in connection with the violence that erupted in Prayagraj on 10 June, they have slapped him with eight cases and a preventive detention order.
After Mohammad secured bail in five cases—two from the lower court and three from the Allahabad High Court—and his year-long preventive detention slapped under the National Security Act, 1980 was coming to an end in July, the UP police last month arrested him in three cases related to the destruction of public property.
A study of the legal documents, including FIRs and bail orders, suggests the UP police may have jailed him for a year even though they have no specific allegation related to the violence in June last year and nothing to show that he was the “mastermind” behind it.
In two cases, while granting bail earlier this year, the Allahabad High Court said the evidence on the record did not show he was an “instrument” of violence or that he instigated a mob, but he remains incarcerated in Deoria jail.
The High Court said that the arguments by the defence lawyer Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi—tutored witnesses, no materials from the site or forensic report about explosives—“could not be satisfactorily disputed” by Manish Goyal, additional advocate general.
“Every power is with the state,” Naqvi, Mohammad’s lawyer, told Article 14. “They lodge another FIR and another and another. The person has no choice but to go to court. It is nothing but harassment by the police.”
“This is nothing but manipulation by state authorities because they want him to remain in jail, and they are adamant that he could not be released,” said Naqvi. “It is by design.”
Mohammad, a distributor of pumps and a father to five children, including Afreen Fatima, a student activist, was known to be a bridge between the administration and the Muslim community in Prayagraj.
The 57-year-old would frequently move the courts on social justice and civic issues. His most significant legal victory was getting the Muslim cemetery cleared of encroachers. While more muted than his daughter Afreen, he also addressed the persecution of Muslims, which had intensified under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, helping organise protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 in Prayagraj and also helping the administration to bring an end to them at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Following a meeting between community leaders and the administration, Mohammad wrote a Facebook post on the morning of 10 June urging Muslims not to gather after Friday prayers to protest remarks made by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma about the Prophet Muhammad, to stay at home and maintain the peace, and raise any grievance through a memorandum to the state and central governments and the president of India.
Two days after arresting him, the administration used bulldozers to demolish his family house in Prayagraj, one in a series of extra-judicial demolitions in UP after protests earning chief minister Yogi Adityanath the title “bulldozer baba” denoting brutal and immediate action. Officials claimed the house was an illegal construction. Mohammad’s family, who moved the Allahabad High Court against the demolition, said it was without due process, and they had no warning.
While Mohammad got bail from an additional sessions judge in one of the three cases in which he was arrested in May, bail in two was rejected even though the crimes under the Indian Penal Code, 1869 and The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, were the same.
The sections are—rioting, unlawful assembly, provocation with intent to cause a riot, mischief by fire or explosive substance, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, theft, mischief causing damage to public property, and mischief causing damage to public property by fire or explosive substance.
The two FIRs where he was not granted bail by the sessions court and moved the Allahabad High Court on 19 June were registered at the Khuldabad police station one hour apart, 10:43 pm and 11:40 pm on 11 June, more than 32 hours after the violence erupted at two in the afternoon in the Attala area on 10 June.
A study of the FIRs shows that Mohammad was not named in any of the three general FIRs registered against unknown persons and there are no specific allegations against him.
So, if police officers were present at the scene and filed FIRs, why did they not identify and name him at the time instead of a year later?
“I was upset when the sessions court rejected his bail in 119 and 120. There was no specific role against him in the general FIR. He has been in custody since 11 June last year,” said Mohammad’s lawyer, Shamsul Irfan. “They put a false case against me after a year, and then my bail was rejected.”
“I felt very bad. I could not sleep for many days,” said Irfan. “It was rejected only because of Javed Mohammad’s name.”
“No Mention Of Explosives”
While granting bail in FIR 176/2022 of the Kairana police station, additional district judge Mann Vardhan said the FIR was registered against unknown persons, Mohammad was not a named accused, and there was “no mention of the use of explosives in the FIR”.
Vardhan said that at this stage of the arguments, there was no information about any forensic investigation or forensic evidence about using explosives and no specific allegation against Mohammad.
Vardhan said the state had submitted Mohammad’s criminal history, but there was no information about any convictions.
Error In The FIR
In FIR 119/2022 of Khuldabad police station, the allegation was that after Friday prayers on 10 June in the Attala area, unknown persons attempted to block the road lighting system so that “they could take advantage of the darkness to create a nuisance”. They burnt wires and threw stones to destroy the street lights, costing the Nagar Nigam over Rs 700,000.
It is well documented that violence erupted in the afternoon.
Senior superintendent of police (SSP) Ajay Kumar said it was around 2:00 pm when people had returned home from Friday prayers, but some “young boys” came out and started pelting stones and bricks, and the police had to use “light force”, and people went home.
Still, Kumar said, some people returned and chanted slogans and pelted stones. Police personnel and other people sustained “minor injuries”. The rickshaw wheel was set on fire, but it was put out. An attempt was made to set fire to a police car, but it was immediately stopped.
“The entire situation is completely in control,” said Kumar. “The situation is completely peaceful right now, but we must keep vigil.”
The district magistrate Sanjay Kumar Khatri said that after Friday prayers, “some boys” gathered and did some “light stone pelting”, which was brought under control with some “light force”.
The DM said the administration had spoken a day earlier to religious leaders who had reassured there would be peace, but “some boys” made a nuisance, but things were completely peaceful.
“I’m in front of you, and I’m completely safe,” said the DM. “Things are completely under control.”
A Very Different Picture
The FIR 118/2022 of Khuldabad police station, which named 70 people and accused 5,000 unknown people, was registered 24 hours later, on 11 June 2022, painted a very different picture of the nature of the violence that erupted in Attala on the afternoon of 10 June, violence from the one described by the SSP and the DM in its immediate aftermath.
FIR 118 invoked 23 sections of the IPC, two under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, one under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and two under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The FIR said people lobbed bombs from roofs and fired bullets with the intention of killing policemen. Children were in the crowd. People shouted, “Policemen are kafir, and don’t spare them.”
The FIR said a PAC truck was set on fire, and people looted the guns from the security personnel. Policemen sustained grave injuries.
FIR 175/2022, registered on 11 June at close to eight in the morning at Kareli police station against 14 people, including Mohammad and 200 unknown persons, invoked 18 sections of the IPC, two under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, one under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and two under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The FIR also said people had stones as bombs in their hands and said the policemen were kafir (unbelievers). Children were in the crowd. People set fire to four police motorcycles. Tear gas was used to dispel the crowds. Several policemen were gravely injured.
FIR 176/2022, registered on 11 June at close to nine in the morning at Kareli police station against ten named persons and 250 unknown persons, is the same as the one registered an hour earlier except that it said one motorcycle was destroyed. The police fired a “pump action gun” to disperse the crowd.
On why there were so many FIR relating to the same incident with a few minor changes, Naqvi said, “The story is the same, but a different person from a different angle gives the description. They pick a particular portion of an older FIR and create a new one.”
The Other Allegations
FIR 167/2022 of Kareli police station was registered on 5 June 2022, five days before the violence in Prayagraj, concerning an unrelated Facebook post of 4 June about the UP police arresting Muslims in Kanpur after a march against the BJP’s spokesperson’s remarks on the Prophet Mohammad turned violent on 3 June. The post said that if the government had taken action, no one could make such defamatory remarks, and the government should respect all religions equally, but one could not see that for many years.
A second Facebook post said the government now extended control over the courts. Muslims trusted the courts, but now the Ram Mandir was constructed based on the verdict.
Registered under deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings and statements intent to cause mischief and alarm in the public under the IPC and punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form under the Information Technology Act, 2008, the FIR said that Mohammad’s intention behind saying the government was biassed was to create divisions and enmity based on religion in society and run the atmosphere in the city.
Granting bail on 19 September 2022, a judicial magistrate said that Mohammad had a criminal history, but no information was provided of such a history.
FIR 177/2022 of Kareli police station registered under the Arms Act, 1959, said that a .315 bore pistol and live ammunition were recovered on Mohammad’s person when he was close to his house after Friday prayers.
The FIR was registered after 2:00 pm on 11 June, 24 hours after the alleged recovery of the weapon.
The FIR also placed Mohammad away from the location of the violence in the Attala area, approximately 2.6 km away from his home, when the stone pelting was breaking out.
Noting the defence’s argument that the case was concocted and that a chargesheet had been filed, a judicial magistrate granted bail on 10 October 2022.
Mohammed’s family has previously told Article 14 they have CCTV footage from a neighbour that shows him on a scooty near his house at 2:27 pm.
After bulldozing his house on 12 June, the police claimed to have recovered “objectionable” papers, posters, and illegal weapons–a 12-bore pistol and 315-bore pistol and bullets.
Refuting the allegations as false, Mohammad’s family told Article 14 that the destruction of their house and the removal of its contents was televised on Indian news channels, and no such claim was made at the time.
What The Allahabad High Court Said
In FIR 175/2022 of the Kareli police station, where bail was granted in January 2023, Justice Sameer Jain said that “from perusal of the FIR and the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during the investigation, it appears that general allegations were made against all the accused persons including the applicant”.
“It is neither alleged in the FIR nor in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during the investigation that applicant was either instigating the people or was leading the mob, or he was having any weapon in his hand or was hurling bomb or set the vehicles on fire.
“If we consider the entire evidence available on record, including the statements of prosecution witnesses and statements of applicant and other accused persons recorded during the investigation, then it appears that it is a case of mob violence, and at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant was an instrument for such violence. It can only be said that he was an instrument for such a large gathering of people.”
While granting bail to Mohammad in FIR 176 of Kareli police station in March 2023, where Mohammad was not named, Justice Deepak Verma said that “considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, the complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and law laid by the Apex court in Satendra Kumar Antil vs CBI & Another, the court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.”
‘Could Not Be Satisfactorily Disputed’
While granting bail to Mohmmad in FIR 118/2022 of Khuldabad police station in February 2023, Justice Ajay Bhanot of the Allahabad High Court said that the state could not “satisfactorily refute” the following arguments from the defence.
“He is a law-abiding citizen who holds the unity of the country and amity between various communities very close to his heart,” said Justice Bhanot. “The applicant has neither posted nor shall post any messages which disrupt social harmony in the society.”
The “applicant has been scapegoated as he has opposed certain powerful political interests”, said Justice Bhanot, “the applicant did not instigate any violence”, and “there is no credible evidence to establish that the applicant instigated the mob or indulged in acts of violence”.
“Facebook post, which is relied upon by the prosecution, underscores the belief of the applicant that Allahabad is a city of peace. The applicant merely urged some biased media anchors not to disturb the peace of the city. The other opinions in the Facebook post merely reflect his viewpoints which are at variance from certain political quarters.
“A number of people had gathered after the Friday prayers for which the applicant cannot be held responsible. Neither is the applicant culpable for irresponsible acts of violence committed by some persons.”
“The witnesses being relied upon by the state authorities are tutored witnesses,” said Justice Bhanot. “The materials collected from the site where alleged explosives occurred are not incriminating… No forensic science laboratory report which depicts the use of explosives has been produced by the prosecution.”
“The applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant. It has also been contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid cases only to burnish the credentials of the police investigators,” said Justice Bhanot. “The said criminal cases do not have any bearings on the instant case.”
(Betwa Sharma is managing editor for Article 14.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.