The Bench added that a careful perusal of the record showed that the allegations against the petitioner were that he was a member of the mob armed with deadly weapons “which defied not only the directions issued by the public servants (police officers), but also threatened the authority of the state to the extent that it did not even shy away from inflicting injuries on police officers performing duty at the spot”.
The overall conduct of the mob, whose activities were otherwise duly recorded/videographed, led to the conclusion that it not only threatened the rule of law and authority of the state but also challenged the majesty of the sovereign country, it said.
“Thus, the usual parameters which are adopted for the consideration of a bail petition for a person accused of committing an offence cannot be made applicable to the present case by default. The rule of prudence prescribes that extraordinary measures are supposed to be taken in extraordinary condition and the situation so created by the mob was such that by any parameter it could not have been treated as a normal/ordinary law and order issue.”
An FIR in the matter was registered at Ajnala police station in Amritsar district on February 24, 2012, under provisions of the Arms Act and the IPC relating to attempt to murder and other offences.
Justice Surya Partap Singh added that the “show of strength” by mobsters leading to the violent act depicted that they considered themselves above the “rule of law” and threw a challenge to the sovereignty and integrity of the state.
“It will be a travesty of justice if, despite grave allegations, the petitioner is enlarged on bail,” Justice Surya Partap Singh observed.