No Pre-Arrest relief in Religious Sentiment Case | Effective investigation requires custody, Says HC

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to Harvans Rai in a case involving alleged derogatory social media posts targeting religious sentiments and caste groups, holding that the seriousness of the accusations and the need for effective investigation outweigh personal liberty at this stage. The order reflects a stringent judicial approach toward offences carrying wider societal implications, particularly those arising from digital platforms.

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in Faridabad, accusing the petitioner of uploading objectionable content on social media relating to Lord Bajrang Bali Hanuman, allegedly intended to hurt religious sentiments and provoke communal disharmony. Additional allegations include posting caste-targeted remarks and falsely presenting himself as a practising advocate despite not being enrolled with any Bar Council.

While the Petitioner argued that the allegations were fabricated, no recovery was pending, and he was willing to cooperate with the investigation, the State opposed bail, stressing the gravity of the offence and the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover the full scope of the alleged misconduct.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the material collected during the investigation prima facie supports the allegations and that the petitioner’s conduct, including the alleged impersonation as a lawyer, raises serious concerns. Emphasising the balance between individual liberty and societal interest, the Court held that “custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth.” It further noted that granting pre-arrest bail at this stage could hinder the investigation.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the plea for anticipatory bail.

Case Title: Harvans Rai vs. State of Haryana 

Case No.: CRM-M-14102-2026

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv . Raman Kumar, Sr. DAG. Mahima Yashpal Singla,

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Vaibhav Parashar

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.