Assault on public servant is serious offence: Bombay High Court rejects anticipatory bail plea of person accused of violating lockdown orders

The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of assaulting a public servant after refusing to wear a mask and disobeying lockdown orders imposed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic..It was alleged in the FIR that the accused was selling groceries from residential premises beyond curfew hours back in June. When asked to close the shop and wear a mask, he had refused to do so. He was also accused of abusing the informant, who was a public servant, and of pushing him and assaulting him with a wooden stick..The accused's father, who had also allegedly abused and assaulted the informant, was granted protection from arrest considering his older age and his lesser involvement in the alleged act..While observing that the main accused does not deserve any protection considering the gravity of the offence, Justice SV Kotwal directed the Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai to release his father upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties. The Court held,."The offence is serious. A Public Servant carrying out his duty in the interest of society was assaulted and this fact cannot be tolerated."Bombay High Court.The Court also directed the accused to produce himself at the police station once a month..The accused in the present case sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered with the Goregaon Police Station for offences under Sections 332, 353 (assault on public servant), 188 (disobeying order of public servant), 269, 270 (act to spread infection) and other provisions of the India Penal Code..Advocate VK Rai, Priti Jaiswal and Iran Sayed, appearing for the accused, submitted that the statements on oath by both the accused point out that no such assault was committed by them. They added that the supposed eye witnesses had not even seen the incident and were manipulated..Additional Public Prosecutor Rutuja Ambekar argued that the alleged offence of obstructing an officer on duty was serious. It ought to be discouraged and not condoned..The Court noted that the independent witnesses to the incident had identified both the accused as assailants. Therefore, it refused to take into account the submission that the accused were not present at the spot..[Read order here]