Read Time: 06 minutes

A Delhi Court has rejected the bail petitions of three accused in the anti Muslim sloganeering at Jantar Mantar in the National capital.

MM Udbhav Jain on perusal of the FIR observed that even though “no specific allegation against the applicant/accused can be ascertained and that, even the FIR is silent with regard to commission of offence u/s 153A IPC, yet prima facie perusal of all the material available on record including the alleged video footage, fails to find support in favour of the applicant/accused.”

With regard to offence under 153A IPC, the Court said that “This Court has seen the alleged video clippings and played some part of it in Open Court also. In one of the clippings, applicant/accused, as identified by the IO in the video clipping, can be seen making scathing remarks which are undemocratic and uncalled for from a citizen of this country where principles like Secularism hold the value of basic feature imbibed in the Constitution. Freedom to express oneself is indeed allowed to be enjoyed by the citizens to the fullest possible extent, yet with every right there is a corresponding duty attached. The principle behind Section 153A IPC is to preserve religious/communal harmony and it is the duty of every citizen that while he enjoys his right to express himself, he preserves religious harmony. This indeed is the positive aspect of Secularism.”

Rejecting the bail applications, the Court thus said that it was not in favour of interfering with the ongoing investigation.

 The IO vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that according to CDR report, accused were presenton the spot at or around 2 pm. Presence of accused was also confirmed through obtained video footage. “Release of applicant/accused will be prejudicial in maintaining public tranquillity and will further create serious law and order situation. There are chances that the applicant/accused will create communal disharmony,” submitted the IO.

Advocate Ashwani Dubey,  appearing for the accused submitted that from the reading of FIR nothing inculpatory can be ascertained even prima facie against the accused. He further submitted that FIR was lodged against unknown persons, and the accused were  not even named in the said FIR. Moreover the accused were not even present in the gathering at the time when allegedly offence u/s 153A was committed.

Dubey also claimed parity with the order passed by the Court in Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay who was granted bail on August 11.

The Court however said that Upadhyay’s case was not applicable in the present case since Upadhyay was neither seen in any of the alleged video clippings nor it was prima facie seen that any such act was committed at his behest.

Case Title: Batch of petitions