The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed for bail in a case concerning statements made on YouTube. The court observed that the applicant does not have the right to propagate his religion in a manner that may result in an adverse effect on public order and he cannot propagate his religion in a manner that may be prejudicial to the health and well-being of the informant.
Brief Facts:
The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 18.03.2023 by the informant Jitendra Narayan Singh, stating that in a statement given by the applicant on INN Channel on YouTube, the applicant stated that the informant’s “Katl Wajib Hai” (it is desirable to kill). It has further been stated in the F.I.R. that the applicant has made a reference to the Fatwa issued against the author Salman Rushdie. It has further been stated in the F.I.R. that since the informant changed his religion and accepted Sanatan Dharm, he is repetitively getting threats of life and after the aforesaid video was uploaded on YouTube, he is being threatened. The informant has further stated that the statement of the applicant is spreading hatred in Society at large.
The applicant stated that he is a scholar and spiritual person of the Shia community of Muslims and he is engaged in imparting religious sermons and he has authored several books; that the applicant has never involved himself in any political activities and he is only concerned with academics; that the interview in question was taken when the applicant was returning after finishing some academic activities at New Delhi and he had replied to certain questions asked by a journalist regarding the informant. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant had not issued a fatwa and he has no authority to do so.
The applicant reinforced his stand with the fatwa issued by Imam Khomeini to kill the author Salman Rushdie by saying that when Salman Rushdie wrote some aamez (mixed up) things and expressed his anger through his pen, this was the reason why a person like Imam Khomeini, Azim Aalime Deen (the great scholar of Islam), did not say to Salman Rushdie that he should repent because Salman Rushdie was a dead body.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that what is even more disturbing than the utterances made by the applicant in his interview is that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for anticipatory bail, the applicant has justified his statements and has stated on oath that ‘he had given the statement according to Islamic Jurisprudence (Shia-Jafri) based on many books, wherein it is written that according to Jafri or Imami school, the Male apostates must be executed, while female apostates must be held in solitary confinement until they repent and return to Islam.
The Court noted that what is prima facie from the aforesaid discussion is that the applicant claims himself to be an Islamic religious scholar and he has claimed that he had made the statements “In light of the provisions/sermon of Holy Quran and Islamic jurisprudence” and “In the light of Shia school of thought, philosophy & jurisprudence” but he has not referred to a single verse of the Holy Quran.
Further, the Court said that Article 25 of the Constitution of India confers the Fundamental Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion by providing that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion, but this right is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The applicant does not have the right to propagate his religion in a manner that may result in an adverse effect on public order and he cannot propagate his religion in a manner that may be prejudicial to the health and well-being of the informant. The aforesaid conduct of the applicant is prejudicial to public order and it certainly is extremely disturbing.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, dismissing the application, held that the aforesaid conduct of the applicant does not deserve the exercise of discretion of this Court in his favor by granting him pre-arrest bail.
Case Title: Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini v State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1340 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Dhirendra Kumar Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: G. A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
