It was also contended that individuals working near the police line have been offering Namaz in the mosque situated within the police line campus for a significant period, taking necessary precautions. Therefore, there was no justification for the policemen to prevent him from entering the police line premises.

Finally, it was argued that since the mosque is situated within the police line premises, people should not be deprived of the opportunity to offer the Jumma prayer in the said mosque.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), representing the state, argued that allowing the public to offer Namaz/prayer in the mosque constructed within the police line premises is not feasible. This is due to the fact that the police line houses the armory where arms and ammunition of the police personnel are stored, and the District Wireless Control Room is also located there. Additionally, considering various security concerns, it is not appropriate to permit the general public to enter the police line campus without appropriate permission.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court noted that Section 7 of the Act 1932 is applicable in all districts of Uttar Pradesh, effective from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, which was June 19, 1968.

Regarding the argument concerning the non-grant of sanction before filing the chargesheet under Section 153B IPC, the Court observed that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, had opted for further investigation into the case in question. He assured the High Court that he would exercise due care and precautions to conduct the further investigation of the case in a just and fair manner.

Counsel for Applicant: Gyanendra Singh, Ajmal Khan, Javed Khan

Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh assisted by AGA Piyush Singh and State Law Officer Shivendra Singh Rathaur

Case title - Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another