A Guwahati court has ruled that the arrest of journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar for allegedly violating provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was “not justified.”
The ruling was passed by the court of the additional chief judicial magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), while granting bail to Hussain on March 26 in the first of two cases registered by the Pan Bazar police station against Hussain.
The four-page court order said: “After careful consideration of all the materials in the CD (case diary) and the case record including the ejahar, I am of the opinion that the I/O has not been able to justify the arrest of the accused.”
The case was registered under section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with section 351(2) of the BNS, which deals with criminal intimidation.
The court order also stated that the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was a “Special Act enacted with an objective to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. It was not the intention of the legislature to use the provisions of this Act to arrest people arbitrarily.”
The contents of the forwarding and the grounds of arrest are not supported by the statement of the informant who is the alleged victim of the offence, the court observed.
Granting Hussain bail, the court said, “In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the arrest of the accused is not justified. The bail petition filed on behalf of the accused Dilwar Hussain Mazumdar is thereby allowed and the accused Dilwar Hussain Mazumdar is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of ₹20,000 with a suitable surety of like amount.”
According to the court, the perusal of the footage with the statement of the informant shows the informant (security guard) had “stated that on March 25 when he was performing his duty as a security personnel of the Apex Bank, two people equipped with a camera followed the managing director of the bank to his chamber and when he asked them where they were going, they replied that they were going to meet the managing director.”
He further stated: “They followed the managing director to his chamber and then sat in the visitor’s lobby near the managing director’s chamber. At that time, some people gathered outside the main entrance gate of the bank and both these persons went and joined the people who had gathered outside.”
The court then pointed out, “This was the only statement of the informant. The informant has not stated anything incriminating against the accused in his statement to the police. He has neither mentioned any word of abuse used by the accused nor anything to suggest that they had criminally intimidated him."