The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to popular singer Sandeep Singh Attal, also known as Sandvi, in a case involving allegations of circulating inflammatory and derogatory remarks against migrant workers and specific communities.
Court Cites Serious Allegations and Risk to Public Order
Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the case, declined the pre-arrest bail plea after reviewing the investigation material. The court observed that the evidence pointed to serious and socially disruptive allegations against the accused. Granting bail at this preliminary stage, the bench noted, could potentially impede the ongoing investigation and disturb public order.
The court order highlighted that the petitioner, Sandeep Singh Attal, is accused of circulating abusive and inflammatory content targeting the Purvanchal community and migrant labourers, with remarks also directed against women. This content was allegedly amplified through a widely viewed interview recorded by co-accused Sushil Machan, who owns a web channel.
Beyond a Local Dispute: A Threat to Communal Harmony
Justice Goel emphasized that the allegations were not confined to a minor local altercation. Instead, the court found the conduct capable of stirring "hostility among communities". The remarks were described as derogatory and communal in nature, possessing the potential to provoke significant social disharmony.
In a significant legal analysis, the bench invoked the Speech Act Theory to underline the impact of hate speech. The court referenced the illocutionary and perlocutionary effects of such speech, stressing that the petitioner's utterances carried a clear potential to incite violence and generate insecurity within the broader community.
Custodial Interrogation Deemed Necessary for Fair Probe
The court firmly stated that protecting the accused during the investigation phase could set a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening others to engage in similar unlawful activities. It clarified that legal provisions like Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are designed to protect the innocent from false implication, not those facing prima facie serious allegations supported by electronic evidence.
Given the need for ongoing scrutiny of digital evidence and a thorough assessment of the petitioner's exact role in circulating the provocative content, the court concluded that custodial interrogation remains necessary for a fair and comprehensive investigation. The decision underscores the judiciary's firm stance against content that threatens the nation's social fabric.
