Javed Mohammad, the leader of the Welfare Party of India and the primary accused in the June 2022 Prayagraj Violence case, was granted bail on January 28 by a single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court presided over by Justice Sameer Jain. He is charged with organising the crowd that allegedly set fire to police cars and damaged public property. 

The bench noted that it appears that generic accusations were made against all of the accused people, including the applicant, based on a review of the FIR and the testimony of prosecution witnesses recorded throughout the inquiry.

" 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," The Court unequivocally noted that it was a proper case to give him bail. 

A furious mob of thousands of people is said to have started throwing stones and bombs at police officers and bystanders on June 10, 2022, after the Friday prayers. They are also said to have tried to steal police employees' cellphones and thrown stones at them, which proved fatal as many officers were hurt.

According to the allegations, the protest turned violent when the demonstrators began throwing stones at law enforcement officers while yelling slogans. When the Rapid Action Force (RAF) and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) used lathi charges to disperse the crowd, some officers were hurt as a result of the protesters' stone-throwing. The demonstration also resulted in damage to police vehicles. 

According to the State Police, Muhammad called for the protest (which descended into violence) in response to contentious remarks made by a BJP politician about the Prophet Mohammad.

He was therefore charged under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295A, 307, 332, 336, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120-B IPC, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. However, offences under Sections 143, 144, 145, are subject to bail, with the exception of those under Section 

The Court did, however, take into account the Accused's assertion that he did not direct the crowd to throw rocks and bombs but rather that when a crowd formed, it turned into an unruly mob and he somehow managed to flee the scene.

The Court further noted that even though the statements made by the accused before the police are not admissible, they may still be taken into account when determining whether to grant bail, as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another in 2004 (7) SCC 528.

" From the statements of the accused persons although, it appears that on the instigation of the applicant, they joined the mob and from the statement of the applicant it reflects that he told the people to gather after Friday prayer to show their unity and also told them be prepared for action of administration but from these statements, it could not be reflected that applicant either instigated or instructed them to commit violence. Further, neither in the FIR nor in the statement of any prosecution witnesses including the statement of police personnel, it has been alleged that applicant was either leading or he was instigating the people at the spot," the Court observed.

Therefore, the Court determined that it was a case of mob violence and that at this point, it can only be said that the applicant was instrumental for such a large gathering of people after considering all of the evidence that is on file, including the statements of prosecution witnesses and statements of the applicant and other accused persons recorded during the investigation. The Court noted that he has been incarcerated since June 2022. 

The court further stated that it appeared that the applicant's aggressiveness and activity caused members of his community to congregate in large numbers before the mob carried out the violence, but the applicant does not appear to have been responsible for the violence.

Last but not least, the Court observed that a total of 14 people, including Mohammad, were named in the FIR. A number of these accused people have already been released on bail by this Court's co-ordinate bench, and the applicant's case is on par with those of these accused people according to the allegations made in the FIR and in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during the investigation. His request for bail was accepted as a result. 

Javed's home was demolished by the local authorities as a result of this incident, which is significant. After that, Javed Mohammad's wife filed a complaint against the district government and Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) for demolishing their home on June 12.

Case title - Javed Mohammad @ Pump vs. State of U.P.
Citation- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53834 of 2022