Sedition can't be invoked to quieten the disquiet under pretence of muzzling miscreants: Delhi Court

Law of sedition is a powerful tool which cannot be invoked to quieten the disquiet under the pretence of muzzling the miscreants, a Delhi Court has said (State vs Swaroop Ram).

. Dharmender Rana , Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court while granting bail to a person accused of sedition, said that in the absence of exhortation or incitement to create disorder or disturb public peace or resort to violence, law of sedition cannot be invoked.

. "The law of sedition is a powerful tool in the hands of the state to maintain peace and order in the society. However, it cannot be invoked to quieten the disquiet under the pretence of muzzling the miscreants. Evidently, law proscribes any act which has a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. In the absence of any exhortation, call, incitement or instigation to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence or any allusion or oblique remark or even any hint towards this objective, attributable to the applicant accused, I suspect that Section 124 A IPC can be validly invoked against the applicant."

. The bail applicant, a 21-year- old labourer, was an accused in an FIR registered for commission of offences under 124A/505/468/471 IPC.

. He was in judicial custody since February 5, 2021.

. As per the claim of the Prosecution, the accused posted a fake video on his facebook page with the tagline " Delhi Police mae bagawat 200 policekarmiyon ne diya samuhik istifa. Jai Jawaan Jai Kisan# I_Support_ Rakesh_ Tikait_ Challenge " (There is a rebellion in Delhi Police and around 200 police officials have given mass resignation. Hail the soldier. Hail the farmer).

. The Police claimed that the video pertained to an incident wherein a senior officer of Delhi Police was briefing police personnel at a protest site and also encouraging them to tackle the situation properly.

. The accused sought bail inter alia on the ground that the material alleged against him was innocuous in nature and was an expression of emotions uttered in disagreement with government policies.

. The prosecution contended that considering the seriousness of allegations, the accused did not deserve the indulgence of the court.

. It was submitted that the accused not only made a sensational Facebook post with an intent to spread disaffection against the State but also committed forgery.

. With respect to the offence of forgery, the Court observed that making of a false document was the sine qua non for the same.

. However, the Prosecution had failed to point out the creation of any false document in the instant case, the Court opined.

. "In my considered opinion, it is only when a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person or by the authority of some other person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed that he is guilty of creating a ‘ False Document’. In the case at hand, the prosecution has failed to point out any representation or endeavor on the part of the applicant/accused to cast an impression that the Facebook Page was made, executed or created under the authority of some other person with whose authority it was not made or executed," the Court said.

. After personally viewing the video in the courtroom, the Court noted that a senior police officer of Delhi Police was seen raising slogans, in a very agitated tone, and a group of Delhi Police personnel were seen standing besides him.

. The background voices also suggested a very charged up atmosphere, the Court further said.

. The Court also recorded that as per the Investigating Officer, the accused was not the author of the post in question and he had merely forwarded it.

. Suspecting whether sedition could be validly invoked against the accused, the Court concluded,

. "In my considered opinion, on a plain reading of the tagline attributed to the applicant/accused, invocation of Section 124 A IPC is a seriously debatable issue."

. The Court added that the allegations against the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 505 IPC seemed to bear force but the same was a bailable offence.

. Considering the nature of allegations against the accused, grounds of parity and period of incarceration, the Court granted bail to the accused on him furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount.

. [Read Order]

Sedition can't be invoked to quieten the disquiet under pretence of muzzling miscreants: Delhi Court

aditi@barandbench.com

Related Stories