Last Updated on June 21, 2022 by
Written by Rhythm Agal
In the case, State of Maharashtra v. Sumitkumar Basantram Kashyap, the prosecution alleged that the respondent is guilty under Section 122(b), which criminalizes the act of covering face between sunset and sunrise to commit an offense.
When found, the accused was standing with his face covered with a handkerchief and, when patrolling officers asked questions, could not answer them correctly. Considering the ambiguity in the answers, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against him under Section 122 (b).
The Court in the case decided that wandering on the streets at 1.30 am is not an offense. The Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaon, Mumbai NA Patel stated that 1.30 am in a city like Mumbai is not late, and even if not considering that, no night curfew was enforced at the relevant time. He also mentioned that a person using a handkerchief instead of a mask could not be said to be using it to hide their identity.
As a result, the Court decided to acquit the man three days after his arrest, deciding he was not guilty.
