A Delhi Court recently comprising of a bench of Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil while denying anticipatory bail to a man accused in the Jantar Mantar anti-Muslim sloganeering case, observed that he cannot absolve himself of all responsibility for the “inflammatory and incendiary” content in the speeches allegedly made during the event. [State v. Preet Singh]
Facts of the case
Preet Singh, was accused in the alleged inflammatory and anti-Muslim sloganeering at Jantar Mantar. Singh is the President of Save India Foundation and he is alleged to be the co-organizer of the event where the inflammatory slogans were shouted.
He was booked for the offences punishable under Section 188 (Disobedience to public servant's order), 269-270 (Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 120B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 of IPC.
His plea for anticipatory bail was denied by a Metropolitan Magistrate on August 12.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant/accused argued that applicant/ accused Preet Singh has been falsely implicated in the present case in connivance of his opposition leaders despite the fact that he was not named in the FIR ; that there was no complaint in verbal and writing or PCR call against the applicant or any other person qua the offences as alleged in the FIR ; and the present case is simplicitor to put undue pressure upon him with the intention to harm his reputation, prestige and status in the eyes of Indian people ; that the applicant and his other workers have been maliciously booked in the present FIR by cooking false story and introducing a Police Constable as Complainant, who seems to be an interested person.
It was argued by the counsel for the applicant that he had not given any hatred speech and also from the perusal of the FIR and the interview, it is evident that applicant has not uttered any words against any religions or any other section of the society.
The counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that according to FIR, all the offences alleged against the applicant/accused are bailable in nature except offence punishable under Section 153A IPC and the essential ingredients to make out a case under section 153A IPC against the applicant are missing and till date there is not an iota of evidence to establish that there was intention of the applicant to harm enmity between two groups of people of society by delivering speech and interview to a reporter.
Additional Public Prosecutor SK Kain opposed the bail plea, arguing that it appeared, the speech made by Singh along with the other co-accused had hateful slogans against a particular religion.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The order passed on August 27, by the Court stated that the event was conducted at Jantar Mantar in spite of the denial of permission by the Delhi Police and other authorities in the times of Covid, breaking Covid protocols that were issued by the Union Government. Singh who heads the ‘Save India Foundation’ allegedly organised the event on August 8 called “Bharat Jodo Andolan”.
The Court said, “It is apposite to mention that the applicant not only voluntarily organised the event but also actively participated and provided support to the views and contents of inflammatory speeches, which were being made by the participants/accused persons at that time, by acknowledging and endorsing via gestures and clapping intermittently.”
The Judge said, “He had given the stature of the accused, it was expected that he ought to have exercised his authority, in these circumstances and prevented participants from airing such inflammatory opinions in the larger interest of the public and committee welfare. On the other hand, the applicant is clearly seen actively participating in the incendiary speeches along with his other associates.”
The Judge also mentioned, “In addition, on prima facile analysis of the inflammatory and incendiary content of the speeches or interviews of the participants members of the event, comments especially those pertaining in express pejorative references to a religious community and keeping in view that the applicant was an active organiser of the event, he can not later absolve himself of the responsibility of the content or consequences arising therefrom.”
Read Judgment ;
source ; /www.latestlaws.com/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments