It was also alleged that the protesters abused police officers and caused damage to the vehicles of the Fire Brigade and some medical shops and hotels by pelting stones.

NEW DELHI — The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to 7 anti-CAA protesters observing that they had complied with the conditions laid down by the court, adding that there is no evidence to prove the allegation that they had damaged vehicles during their agitation.

“There is no evidence to show that the vehicles were damaged,” Justice M. G. Sewlikar was quoted by legal news website Live Law as saying.

“The custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to confirm the anticipatory bail,” he added.

An FIR had been lodged on December 20 last year alleging that the protesters gathered at the Shivaji statue, holding green, black and blue fags and the banners in their hands. It alleged that the protesters turned violent and started blocking the traffic and shouting slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.

It was also alleged that the protesters abused police officers and other employees who were on duty and caused damage to the vehicles of the Fire Brigade and some medical shops and hotels by pelting stones.

The protesters were also accused of organising protests without taking prior permission from the concerned authorities.

The call of the protest was given by the office bearers of Kul Jamate Viphak Milli Muttehida Mahaj Muslim Organisation. Those who were granted bail are Saleh, Mohammad Farooq, Mohammed Sadique Khan, Abdul Wajid, Syed Jawed and Mohd Faizan Mujahed. They were represented by K K Qazi.

They were booked under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 188, 332, 336, 341, 353, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act at the New Mondha police station in Maharashtra’s Parbhani.

Counsel Qazi submitted before the court that contents of the FIR disclosed that custodial interrogation of the applicants was not necessary as nothing was to be recovered from them. He submitted that none of the applicants was present in the protest and when he sought CCTV footage to buttress these contentions, the same was not provided to him.

He further submitted that the applicants complied with the conditions imposed by this court, while releasing them on interim anticipatory bail. He, therefore, prayed for confirming the interim relief.

Also, the counsel placed on record the acknowledgments of the police officers indicating that they remained present whenever they were called upon to do so.

To this, the court said, “This shows that the applicants have complied with the conditions imposed by this court. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to confirm the anticipatory bail”