Prima facie evidence and witness intimidation risk justified refusal of bail in a violent mob attack investigation.

Bail was refused where the court found a prima facie case from call detail records, witness statements, video footage and recovery material indicating the petitioners' alleged role in mobilising a violent mob, obstructing investigation and influencing witnesses. The court balanced prolonged custody against the gravity of the alleged attack on investigating officials, damage to government property and the risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, and held that the co-accused on bail were not similarly circumstanced. Delayed recording of some witness statements was treated as a matter for trial, not a ground to displace the incriminating material at this stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, accused of mobilising a violent mob, attacking investigating officials and obstructing investigation, are entitled to grant of bail pending further investigation and trial.

Analysis: The impugned order examines the material collected during investigation including call detail records indicating multiple calls in the relevant period, witness statements prima facie placing the petitioners at their premises and indicating they called persons to assemble, video footage suggesting presence of a mob, recovery of firearms kept by an associate, and complaints of threats and influence over witnesses. Investigation and charge-sheeting are in progress with further evidence and supplementary charges contemplated. While prolonged custody is recognised as a factor favouring bail, the assessment balances that factor against the incriminating material, the petitioners' alleged leadership role in mobilising a large violent crowd, the gravity of injuries to officials and damage to government property, and the real risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released. The co-accused released on bail were found not similarly circumstanced. The analysis treats delayed recording of some witness statements as an issue for trial, but finds the collected material sufficient for a prima facie case to refuse bail at this stage.

Conclusion: Bail applications of the petitioners are rejected; petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage and the proceedings shall continue.

---