Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses pre-arrest bail to councillor accused of instigating mob

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a councillor, Atamdas, who allegedly instigated a mob to commit arson and looting while agitating against a Supreme Court ruling, leading to public and private property damage. (Atamdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh).Justice Sheel Nagu rejected Atamdas' anticipatory bail plea after noting that prima facie, the councillor's alleged conduct was unbecoming of an elected representative.."What is most surprising in this case is that petitioner despite being a sitting Councillor behaved in a highly irresponsible manner instigating members of his community to indulge in arson and looting leading to widespread damage to private and pubic property. The record reveals that petitioner did nothing to prevent members of his community from committing offences. Instead the petitioner instigated them. Prima facie the act of petitioner, to say the least, was unbecoming of an elected representative", the Court said..The mob was stated to have been protesting against a 2018 decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra..In the said judgment, the top Court had introduced safeguards to prevent misuse of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) against officers who deal with the complaints under the Act in their official capacity..The mob was under the impression that this decision of the Supreme Court was against the interest of the SC/ST community..As such, in 2018, the councillor and others co-accused allegedly led an unruly mob of around 700-800 persons who were protesting the Supreme Court decision. .The Court observed that due to such protest, a large number of public and private property were destroyed and life in city had come to a standstill..Atamdas had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 186, 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code 1860..The Court observed that though none of the offences alleged against Atamdas attract more than three years of imprisonment, they are cognizable and non-bailable..The Court further noted that while the benefit of the Supreme Court's ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar could be extended to the Atamdas, it declined to grant him pre-arrest bail "looking to the culpable behaviour of the petitioner who has demeaned the dignity attached to the office of Councillor.".Advocate Mahendra Singh Yadav appeared for Atamdas. Public Prosecutor Kuldeep Singh appeared for the State..[Read Order]