Bombay High Court: M.G. Sewlikar, J., in reference to the judgment pronounced by this Court on 21-08-2020, with regard to the quashing of FIRs again foreign nationals who indulged in Tablighi Jamaat, stated that it agreed with the operative part of the Judgment but does not agree with some reasoning and the reasons has been given now.
In the present order, M.G. Sewilkar, J., lays down the reasons that were reserved.
Bench states that the material on record does not show that the foreign nationals were infected with COVID-19 when they landed in India, neither there is any material of visa conditions being violated.
Further, it adds that,
“Continuation of prosecution against the petitioners in these circumstances would be an abuse of process of Court.”
Therefore, M.G. Sewlikar, J. accepted the reasons laid down in the earlier Judgment except for the following observations:
“35) There were protests by taking processionse holding Dharana at many places in India from atleast from prior to January 2020. Most of the persons participated in protest were Muslims. It is their contention that Citizenship Amendment Acte 2019 is discriminatory against the Muslims. They believe that Indian Citizenship will not be granted to Muslim refugees and migrants. They were protesting against National Registration of Citizenship (NRC). There were protests on large scale not only in Delhie but in the most of the States in India. It can be said that due to the present action taken fear was created in the minds of those Muslims. This action indirectly gave warning to Indian Muslims that action in any form and for any thing can be taken against Muslims. It was indicated that even for keeping contact with Muslims of other countriese action will be taken against them. Thuse there is smell of malice to the action taken against these foreigners and Muslim for their alleged activities. The circumstances like malice is important consideration when relief is claimed of quashing of F.I.R. and the case itself.”
Hence, he opined that the above-stated observations are outside the scope of the petitions and quashed the FIRs and Chargesheets. [Konan Kodio Ganstone v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 877, decided on 27-08-2020]