P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to law student booked for FB posts against Hindu deity

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a law student accused of posting objectionable content on Facebook, targeting Hindu deity Bajrang Bali Hanuman.

The accused was alleged to have posted derogatory remarks against a caste community as well.

Further, he was accused of pretending to be a practicing advocate, even though he had yet to complete his legal studies or enrol as an advocate with a Bar Council.

The first information report (FIR) registered against him cited provisions relating to promoting enmity, hurting religious sentiments and cheating.

Justice Sumeet Goel on March 16 rejected the accused's plea for pre-arrest bail, in view of the seriousness of the allegations against him.

“In view of the gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth,” held the Court.

The accused is alleged to have posted derogatory content on social media concerning the Hindu deity Bajrang Bali Hanuman with the intention of outraging the religious sentiments of Hindus. He was also accused of posting objectionable remarks targeting a caste group.

The Court noted that the material collected during the preliminary investigation of the case, prima facie, supported the allegations levelled in the FIR.

“The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation,” observed the Court.

The Court also took note of allegations that the accused had been falsely presenting himself as a practising advocate despite not being enrolled with any Bar Council.

“Admittedly, the petitioner is still pursuing his LLB and therefore is not legally entitled to practice as an advocate. The aforesaid material prima facie supports the allegations that the petitioner is impersonating as an advocate and cheating the public,” recorded the Court.

The Court further rejected the argument that the accused can be released on bail since there was nothing left to recover from him and since he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

It emphasised that keeping him in custody for questioning was necessary to carry out a proper and effective probe.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea, while clarifying that its observations were limited to the adjudication of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.

Advocate Raman Kumar appeared for the accused.

Senior Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Haryana Mahima Yashpal Singla represented the State of Haryana.

Advocate Vaibhav Parashar represented the complainant.

[Read Order]