Mere presence in mob not enough, court discharges 7 in arson case

08/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 7: Mere presence in a mob is not sufficient to establish criminal liability for arson unless there is material showing that the accused participated in or shared the unlawful common object of the violent acts, a Jammu court has observed while discharging seven persons in a 2019 arson case.
The order was passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma, in a case arising out of violence during a Jammu bandh following the February 2019 Pulwama terror attack.
The court, in its order dated September 5, discharged Rohit Sharma, Kailash Kumar, Manat Kumar, Sajan Kumar, Sukhdev Singh alias Rinku, Sahil Sharma and Jagdish Kumar of offences under Sections 188, 147, 148, 149, 435 and 427 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The court also dismissed the challan and discharged the accused from their bail bonds.
The case, registered as FIR No. 15/2019 at City Jammu police station, related to an incident on February 15, 2019, when a crowd of around 600-700 people allegedly turned violent near Vivekanand Chowk after police stopped its movement while it was proceeding from J.P. Chowk towards Raghunath Bazaar.
According to the prosecution, members of the mob damaged parked vehicles and set five to six vehicles on fire.
The defence, represented by advocates Anmol Sharma and Rajesh Sharma, argued that the evidence established, at best, the presence of the accused at the spot and did not show their participation in the violence or any shared unlawful common object.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar, opposed the plea and submitted that sufficient material existed for framing charges.
Examining the statements of police witnesses, the court found that one statement appeared to be a "carbon copy" of another, with similarities even in their chronology.
The court further noted that witnesses who named some of the accused failed to specify when, where or under what circumstances they had identified them and did not assign any specific role to them in the alleged arson.
The judge also questioned the prosecution's claim that witnesses subsequently learnt the names of other accused, observing that the source of such information had not been explained.
The court held that mobile tower locations showing the accused to be near the scene were not sufficient to establish that they were part of the particular section of the crowd that had turned violent and indulged in arson.
The judge observed that the initial object of the assembly was to protest against the Pulwama terror attack and there was no material to show that its members had carried deadly weapons or combustible material indicating an intention to commit violence from the beginning.
Once the crowd allegedly turned violent, it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to establish who actually participated in or abetted the acts of arson and who shared the unlawful common object, the court said.
On the allegation of violation of prohibitory orders, the court noted that neither the relevant order under Section 144 of the CrPC nor the requisite complaint by the concerned public servant had been placed on record.
Emphasising that a court cannot function as a mere "Post Office" for the prosecution at the stage of framing charges, the judge held that the material on record raised only a "bleak suspicion" and not the grave suspicion necessary to proceed against the accused.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty