High Court grants Anticipatory Bail to a Whatsapp Group Member who Circulated Messages containing Outrage Religious Feelings

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday 4 April, 2018 in Deepak Nagle v. State granted anticipatory bail to a member of a whatsapp group who allegedly indulged in circulation of messages containing material which may outrage the religious feeling of non-SC/ST community.

He criticized the role of Swarn Varg and Hindu Gods and Goddess with intention to provoke members of SC/ST community for violence and revenge.

Advocate Vikram Singh appeared for the applicant and Govt. Advocate Aseem Dixit for the respondent/State.

The applicant / accused apprehended his arrest in connection with Crime No.94/18, registered at Police Station Junardev, District Chhindwara (MP), for the offences under Sections 295 of IPC and Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act.

He is a member of group namely Jai Bheem Jai Bharat. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent.

The offence under Section 6A of the Information Technology Act has been declared unconstitutional by the Apex Court.

So far as the offence under Section 295-A of the IPC is concerned, there is no material to constitute the ingredients of the offence. Merely having a different aspect and view about the religion and God and Goddess and mobilizing the same mind people cannot be said to be an offence under Section 295 A of the IPC, the counsel argued.

He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and others 2017(7) SCC 60 in which it is held that Section 295A of the IPC does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of class of citizens.

It penalise only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. Present case is not of such nature.

The offene is punishable with three years imprisonment and applicant's custodial interrogation is not required hence, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail, the counsel added.

The Govt. Advocate has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection stating that the act of the applicant is harming the religious sentiments of the religious community with a view to disturb the peace of society. Hence, the application be rejected.

In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, the application of the applicant is allowed by the High Court and it is ordered that if applicant-accused Deepak Nagle surrenders before the Arresting Authority / Investigating Officer in relation to the aforesaid crime number, within 15 days from today and if he is arrested by the Investigating officer, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a a bail bond and surety bond each for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

If he failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically, the Order added.

The applicant-accused is directed to join the investigation of immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C, the Order said.

The copy of the order supplied to Govt. Advocate for compliance.

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog