High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Case of Alleged Deity Insult on Social Media
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly rejected a plea for anticipatory bail in a sensitive case involving social media posts that allegedly targeted Lord Hanuman. The court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation, dismissing concerns about potential third-degree methods as unfounded.
Gravity of Allegations Leads to Bail Denial
Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the case, ruled that the petition was devoid of merits due to the serious nature of the accusations. The petitioner is accused of posting malicious and derogatory messages on Facebook with the intent to insult and outrage the religious sentiments of Hindus. Additionally, the prosecution claims the messages targeted a specific caste community, aiming to hurt their sentiments.
The court noted that the material collected during the investigation prima facie supports these allegations, highlighting the need for a deeper probe into the matter.
Custodial Interrogation Deemed Essential
In its detailed order, the Bench stated that custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation and to unravel the truth. Justice Goel observed that the petitioner's role and the gravity of the allegations warrant such a step to ensure a fair and comprehensive inquiry.
The court also addressed the petitioner's apprehension about being subjected to third-degree methods during custody, dismissing it as an argument that could be raised in any criminal case. The Bench asserted that it must presume police officers will act responsibly and not engage in misconduct.
Additional Charges of Impersonation and Cheating
Beyond the religious insult charges, the prosecution alleges that the petitioner has been falsely portraying himself as an advocate. According to the case details, the petitioner is still pursuing his LL.B. and is not enrolled with any Bar Council, making him ineligible to practice law. The court found prima facie evidence supporting allegations of impersonation and cheating the public.
This aspect further complicated the petitioner's plea, as it added layers of legal and ethical violations to the case.
Court's Final Ruling and Implications
The High Court concluded that, given the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The dismissal underscores the judiciary's stance on protecting religious sentiments and ensuring rigorous investigation in matters involving potential hate speech and fraud.
This ruling may set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and the need for law enforcement to conduct unimpeded investigations into serious offenses.
