FB posts on deity: HC denies anticipatory bail, rejects 'third-degree' apprehension plea

Refusing pre-arrest protection in a case involving social media posts on Lord Hanuman allegedly “intended to outrage the religious sentiments of Hindus and insult their deity”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that custodial interrogation was “necessary for an effective investigation” and to “unravel the truth”.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that the petition was “devoid of merits” in view of the gravity of the accusations and the material collected during investigation. The court was dealing with a petition seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered at Faridabad Central police station.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner had allegedly posted malicious and derogatory messages on his Facebook account “with the intent to insult and outrage the religious sentiments of Hindus”.

It was added that the petitioner also “posted objectionable messages targeting a particular caste with the intention to hurt and insult the sentiments of members of that caste community”. “It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is falsely portraying himself as an advocate and practicing in courts without possessing the requisite qualification and without being enrolled with any Bar Council. Admittedly, the petitioner is still pursuing his LL.B, and, therefore, is not legally entitled to practice as an advocate. The material prima facie supports the allegations that the petitioner is impersonating as an advocate and cheating the public,” Justice Goel observed.

The Bench added the argument that the custodial interrogation was fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods “need not be countenanced”. Such an argument could be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. “The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders," Justice Goel added.

The Bench concluded: “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. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed."