Hanuman Jayanti processions

In the Matter of Aniket Mishra vs State of Odisha On April 14, 2023, a procession was held in Sambalpur Town in honour of Hanuman Jayanti. Some thugs ransacked the New Alishan Shoe Centre as the march was going on. The shop was also burned down by the criminals. The investigation revealed that approximately 50 people attacked the shop by taking advantage of the large crowd at the Hanuman Jayanti parade. In addition, they were yelling insulting and offensive chants at minority groups, offending Muslims’ religious sensibilities.

During the recent Hanuman Jayanti procession in the State, a man was arrested for screaming racial epithets at members of the Muslim community and ransacking a store. The Orissa High Court’s single judge, Justice Chittaranjan Dash, denied him anticipatory bail. The petitioner had organised a gang of criminals to assault Muslim-owned businesses and homes, the court noted from the First Information Report (FIR).

The event took place in connection with Hanuman Jayanti while the procession was being taken, and the court notes that it was one of several retaliatory acts for the incident that took place on April 14, 2023, just three days earlier. The FIR lists the names of several people, including the present Petitioner, who led the mob that attacked Muslim-owned businesses and homes. The bench noted that a riot that followed resulted in arson and bloodshed. The judge said that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary power and cannot be granted ordinarily.

The Court stated that there is no evidence in the FIR indicating the Petitioner holds a high-profile position that could lead one to believe that a case was fabricated against him to smear him. The Court emphasised that nothing suggests that a petitioner is a person with a good reputation or a person having a clean image from the arguments made in his request for pre-arrest release.

The Court stated that there is no evidence in the FIR indicating the Petitioner holds a high-profile position that could lead one to believe that a case was fabricated against him to smear him. The Court emphasised that nothing suggests that a petitioner is a person with a good reputation or a person having a clean image from the arguments made in his request for pre-arrest release.