‘Hanuman Chalisa’ at Mosque: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Cites Presumption of Innocence

The Allahabad High Court on June 3, 2025, granted bail to two individuals accused of attempting to incite communal disharmony by allegedly reciting ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ near a mosque in Meerut.

The court reaffirmed the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive, stressing the fundamental presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh, while hearing the bail plea of Sachin Sirohi and Sanjay Samarval, observed that continued custody is not justified solely based on the seriousness of the allegations.

“The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive,” the judge noted, drawing from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinod Bhandari v. State of M.P.

The duo had approached the court for relief in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025, registered under Sections 191(2), 196, and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Sadar Bazar police station, Meerut.

According to the prosecution, the applicants, along with others, entered a religious site belonging to the Muslim community and forcibly recited 'Hanuman Chalisa,' allegedly aiming to provoke enmity between religious groups.

Opposing the bail plea, the Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the aggrieved parties contended that the accused acted deliberately to disturb communal harmony. The seriousness of the act, they argued, warranted denial of bail.

However, counsel for the applicants maintained that the allegations were baseless and politically motivated. They argued that there was no credible evidence against their clients and that the criminal history referred to had been adequately explained in the affidavit submitted with the bail application.

Weighing both sides, the court ruled that, without delving into the merits of the case at this stage, the applicants had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted with strict conditions. These included a bar on tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and a requirement for regular court appearances.

The order further makes it clear that the applicants must refrain from making any inducements or threats to individuals acquainted with the case, and any breach would give the trial court liberty to cancel their bail.

Case Title: Sachin Sirohi and Another vs State of UP