Bail for Haryana man who sent objectionable video on social media

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 1

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim bail to a person who had allegedly forwarded an objectionable video on social media.

Justice Jaishree Thakur ruled that it would be a matter of trial whether the petitioner was liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the SC and ST Act merely because he forwarded a video made on the utterances of another person against a police officer and doctors.

Justice Thakur was hearing a petition filed against the state and other respondents by Jitender Jatasra through counsel Pardeep Kumar Rapria for regular bail in an FIR registered on April 22 at the Dadri City police station under the provisions of the IT Act, IPC and SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Matter of trial

Whether the complainant is the victim or not and the petitioner will be liable under the SC & ST Act merely because he has forwarded the video made of the utterances of one Rahul against the SP and doctors will be a matter of trial. —Justice Jaishree Thakur, HC

Rapria contended the allegations were totally unsustainable. The FIR was registered at the behest of an ASI, stating that he received two videos on his WhatsApp. He found that one Rahul had commented on the caste of a Superintendent of Police.

Justice Thakur asserted that the SP was not before the court. The only admitted fact at the moment was that the petitioner was not the person who spoke the words and his role at best would be of a person who circulated the video and uploaded the same on social media.

The propounder of the words was one Rahul already in custody. “The issue whether the complainant is the victim or not would be a matter of trial. It would also be a matter of trial whether the petitioner would be liable under the SC and ST Act merely because he has forwarded the video made of the utterances of one Rahul against the SP and doctors,” Justice Thakur asserted.

Before parting with the matter, Justice Thakur added that the Court was of the opinion that interim bail was required to be allowed to the petitioner till notice was served to the complainant/ victim to address arguments. The case will now come up for further hearing in April next year. — TNS