[BREAKING] Kerala High Court grants anticipatory bail to Lakshadweep filmmaker Aisha Sultana in sedition case [READ ORDER]

The Kerala High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Aisha Sultana, a filmmaker from Lakshadweep in the sedition case registered against her for certain remarks made by her on a television panel discussion (Aysha Sulthana v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep)..Sultana had stated on live TV that Central government's decision to relax COVID restrictions on the islands was a “Bio-weapon” against the natives of the island..Single-judge Justice Ashok Menon ruled that there was no apparent indication of any assertions in Sultana's statement which were prejudicial to national interest. "There is no apparent indication in her statement, which amounts to imputations or assertions prejudicial to the national interest, nor does it propagate any class of persons against another group of persons," the order said. .The Court, therefore, proceeded to allow the application for anticipatory bail. "In the event of her arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on execution of bond for 50,000 with two solvent ₹ sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions under Section 438 (2) Cr.PC," the Court said. The Court, however, clarified that plea is for anticipatory bail and the Court's order is not a decision on the merits of the case..The Lakshadweep Police had registered an FIR against Sultana on the basis of a complaint filed by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader who alleged that Sultana had spread false information about the spread of COVID-19 on the islands and that her remarks on TV show regarding the new Lakshadweep Administrator Praful Patel, amounted to an "anti-national" act.Case was also registered against her under Section 153A which penalises promoting enmity between religious groups. .The Court, in its order released today, stated that the decisive ingredient for establishing the offence of sedition under Section 124A is commission of acts which would bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt etc. In the instant case, the Court opined that "there is not even a suggestion that applicant did anything as such against the Government of India"..The Court noted that there was no indication in Sultana's statement which was prejudicial to national interest nor does it propagate any class of persons against another group of persons. "It is therefor doubtful whether the penal provisions of S.153-A would be attracted in this case," the Court observed. .Following the registration of the FIR in Lakshadweep, Sultana had approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail earlier this month. Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, appeared for Sultana while Standing Counsel S Manu, represented the Central government. .Lakshadweep Filmmaker Aisha Sultana moves Kerala High Court for Anticipatory Bail in Sedition case.The Court had, on June 17, granted her interim protection from arrest for a week, directing that if she is arrested after interrogation, she should be released on interim anticipatory bail. .[BREAKING] Kerala High Court grants interim protection from arrest for one week to Lakshadweep filmmaker Aisha Sultana in sedition case.While reserving judgement, the Court had directed Sultana to co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Lakshadweep Police for interrogation as required under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure..However, yesterday the Lakshadweep Administration filed an application before the High Court alleging that the filmmaker had abused the Court's earlier interim protection and broke COVID-19 protocol on the islands. .It was stated in the application that her blatant violation of quarantine norms after agreeing to adhere to it shows that she has no respect for legal obligations..Aisha Sultana virtually abused Court’s interim protection, broke COVID-19 protocol: Lakshadweep Administration to Kerala High Court.The administration believed these developments are relevant for deciding the bail application and, therefore, submitted documents to that effect to the Court..However, the Court today asserted that this is only an application for anticipatory bail and not a petition for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Court reiterated that it is not deciding the prosecution case on its merits..Justice Menon declined to venture into discussion regarding the merits of the accusations made against the applicant and stated, "Prima facie, the offences alleged by the prosecution are not attracted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. She is not likely to flee from justice". The Court opined that custodial interrogation of the applicant and her incarceration in prison, particularly in these pandemic times may not be required. It observed that the prosecution has also not expressed any fear of her fleeing from justice or not co-operating with the investigation.The Court also did not see any evidence of Sultana not complying with its earlier directive to co-operate with the Investigating Officers.Therefore, the Court granted her anticipatory bail and disposed the application. .[Read Order]