No bail for Munawar, HC factors to proof of ‘disparaging’ remarks

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Thursday rejected the bail software of comic Munawar Faruqui whereas observing that the proof suggests he made “scurrilous, disparaging utterances… outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate” intention “under the garb of stand-up comedy”.
Faruqui was arrested in Indore on January 1 following a grievance by Eklavya Singh Gaur, the son of BJP MLA Malini Singh Gaur and convenor of native outfit Hindu Rakshak, that the comic allegedly harm Hindu non secular sentiments throughout a comedy present at a preferred cafe that day.
The order was handed by a single-judge bench, of Justice Rohit Arya of the Indore bench of the High Court, which had reserved judgment Monday on the bail pleas of Mumbai-based Faruqui and co-accused Nalin Yadav.
“The evidence/material collected so far suggest that in an organized public show under the garb of stand-up comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicants,” the bench dominated.
The bench mentioned that it “refrains from commenting upon contentions of the parties touching on merits, but regard being had to the material seized and the statements of the witnesses and that the investigation is in progress, no case is made out for grant of bail.”
Dismissing the pleas, the High Court noticed: “There is also a specific assertion by the learned counsel for the complainant (of) the applicant along with other co-accused persons allegedly making outraging filthy jokes in social media deliberately against Hindu Gods, Lord Shriram and Goddess Seeta hurting religious sentiments of Hindus for the last 18 months despite protest on various social media platforms. There is nothing on record to the contrary.”
The court docket additionally noticed: “In the light of the statements of the complainant and the witnesses referred above, the seized articles, viz., video footage of the show and the seizure memos detailed above, at this stage, it is difficult to countenance to the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as complacency of the applicant cannot be ruled out, besides vulnerability of his acts in the public domain.”
Referring to a separate FIR registered towards Faruqui in UP, the bench mentioned: “The possibility of collection of more incriminating material and complacency of other persons cannot also be ruled out. Further, it has come on record that a similar nature of offence has been registered against the applicant at Police Station Georgetown, Prayagraj, state of Uttar Pradesh.”
The court docket, nevertheless, clarified that its “observations, if any, made in the order on facts are only for the purpose of deciding these bail applications and shall have no bearing on the pending trial”.
In the 10-page order, the court docket invoked the basic duties of a citizen to advertise concord and brotherhood. However, the order doesn’t account for any precedents on bail jurisprudence.
In November final yr, whereas granting bail to Republic TV editor-in chief Arnab Goswami, the Supreme Court cited a line of precedents and summarised the elements that High Courts should take into account to grant bail. They embrace an inexpensive apprehension of the accused tampering with witnesses, or being a menace to the complainant or the witnesses, or the potential for securing the presence of the accused on the trial or the chance of the accused fleeing from justice.
Even upon conviction, the Criminal Procedure Code permits bail in the course of the pendency of an attraction within the High Court towards the conviction if the sentence is of lower than three years. The most sentence for Section 259A of the IPC that Munawar and his associates are charged with is three years.
“Before parting with the case”, the Indore bench mentioned Thursday: “It is the constitutional duty of every citizen of the country and also of the States to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India irrespective of religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities and to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture… States must endeavour that ecosystem and sustenance of co-existence in our welfare society is not polluted by negative forces and must strive for achievement of goals as enshrined under Article 51A (e) and (f) of the Constitution of India in particular as these provisions are part of our vibrant Constitution and not dead letters.”
Munawar’s bail plea was rejected on January 5 by a classes court docket and his judicial custody prolonged by two weeks on January 13.
Following the High Court order, Vivek Tankha, Senior Counsel showing for Faruqui, mentioned: “I have read the order and I feel in my 30-40 years of experience that this is an order where the applicant can expect relief from Supreme Court.”
Anshumaan Shrivastava, advocate representing Faruqui, mentioned: “The bail has been rejected based on statements which are baseless and false…The order also reflects that the police registered the case under presumption.”
The case was registered underneath IPC sections 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, meant to outrage non secular emotions of any class by insulting its faith or non secular beliefs), part 269 (illegal or negligent act more likely to unfold the an infection of any illness harmful to life) and different related provisions by Tukoganj police primarily based on Gaur’s grievance.
Rajesh Joshi, who’s representing Gaur, mentioned: “Faruqui has hurt the religious feelings of Hindus under the garb of freedom of speech and expression by delivering jokes against Hindu Gods… We will oppose the bail application before Supreme Court.”