Himachal Pradesh High Court rejects anticipatory bail to doctor accused of insulting Lord Shiva

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a doctor accused of posting derogatory comments about Lord Shiva and Nandi (bull mount of Shiva) on Facebook. [Dr Nadeem Akhtar v State].Justice Virender Singh noted that the accused was not an ordinary man but an educated individual who was fully conscious of the potential impact of his alleged post and comments.The Court added that every person has a duty to respect the religious beliefs of others in society. "While residing in the society, it is the duty of every person to give due respect to the religious belief of other members of the society. In the name of freedom of expression, the laxman rekha should not be crossed," the Court said..Allowing the bail application would give a wrong signal to society and encourage others to make such comments to cause resentment in followers of other religions, which is not good for the secular fabric of the country, the Court added. .Therefore, it rejected the plea for anticipatory bail preferred by an ophthalmologist, Nadeem Akhtar.The complaint filed against Akhtar alleged that he had posted derogatory comments against Shivling and Nandi. The complaint added that he habitually made such posts and that his acts had outraged religious feelings. His posts also led to resentment among people of nearby villages as well as mass demonstrations, the Court was told. Therefore, a first information report (FIR) was lodged under Section 295-A (hurting religious sentiments) of the Indian Penal Code against Akhtar. Later on, charges under Section 153A (promoting enmity) and 505(2) (public mischief) of the IPC were also added in the complaint against Akhtar. During the investigation, the police obtained print-outs of screenshots from Akhtar's Facebook page, which contained the alleged derogatory posts. A status report was also submitted before the Court, which detailed the objectionable posts found on Akhtar's Facebook profile. .Akhtar, meanwhile, submitted that his Facebook account had been hacked and that the controversial posts were made by someone else. However, the Court pointed out that he had not made any complaint to the police about his account being allegedly hacked. Moreover, the Court noted that, as per the status report, Akhtar appeared to have made Google searches on how to delete internet data and modify online comments.Considering this aspect as well, the Court proceeded to reject Akhtar's bail plea."The applicant is having status in the society and, as such, he carries more responsibility. He ought to have exercised more caution before allegedly making the comments or putting post on his Facebook account," the Court added. .The Court also clarified that its observations should not be viewed as an expression on the merits of the case against Akhtar, and were only made to decide on the question of bail. .Advocate Adarsh K Vashishta appeared for Akhtar. Additional Advocates General HS Rawat and Tejasvi Sharma along with Deputy Advocates General Leena Guleria and Avni Kochhar Mehta appeared for State.Senior Advocate Ashok Sharma along with advocates Onkar Jairath, Jyotirmay Bhatt, Ankit Dhiman, Gaurav Kaushal, Sushmit Bhatt and Shyam Singh Chauhan appeared for complainants..[Read Order]