Chattisgarh High Court
Azeem Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 814 of 2022
Azeem Khan S/o Rahim Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Talapara
Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines
Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
For the Applicant :- Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Sushil Sahu, P.L.
_____________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,
Order on Board
29.07.2022
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant
who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.568/2022
registered at Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, CG for
the offence punishable under Sections 295-A of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that from the facebook
account of the applicant, objectionable images have been posted and
on account of which the FIR under Section 295(A) of IPC has been
registered.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that on 26.05.2022 someone
has uploaded images by making an account and posted in the
facebook on 09.01.2022 person namely Prabha Bisht has made
account and uploaded this images in facebook on account of Indian
atheist but no action has been taken by anyone against him or her. It is
website in which 22,395 members are participating. When it was
brought to his knowledge he deleted and removed it and posted an
apology letter from all religions. He further submits that the applicant
has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Applicant is a
social worker and continuously raised voice for protection of the women
and children. He further submits that none of the comment, is with an
intention to insult any particular religion or to outrage the religious
feeling of the people of that class, hence the applicant may be enlarged
on anticipatory bail. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the matter of Particia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya, AIR on line
2021 SC 173, Ramji Lal Modi vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1957
SC 620 and Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yarraguntla Shyamsundar
and another reported in (2017) 7 SCC 760. Placing reliance on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, order dated
07/10/2021 passed in MCRC(A) No. 1282/2021 Karan Goyal vs. State
of Chhattisgrh passed by coordinate Bench of this Court and would
submit that in view of nature of allegation and punishment provided
under the offences charged, applicant may be released on anticipatory
bail.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that looking to
the allegations against the applicant, it is apparent that Section 295-A
of IPC has rightly been charged in the FIR, investigation is going on
and therefore he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. On being
asked whether because of the allegations and overt act is there any
evidence to show that there was some rivalry or enmity or some
incident has taken place, the answer given by counsel for the State is
in negative.
5. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
6. Considering the nature of allegations and circumstances of the
case, nature of allegations, submission of the counsel for the applicant
that the applicant has posted an apology letter from all religions,
aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court without commenting
anything on merits, this Court is inclined to benefit of Section 438 of
CrPC to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is
directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with
the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following
conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for
interrogation by the concerned police officer as and
when so required.
(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the
Court or to any police officer,
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,
(d) After filing of the charge-sheet, he shall
appear before the trial Court on each and every
date given to him by the said Court till disposal of
the trial,
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence
of similar nature in future
(f) If any of the conditions is violated by the
applicant, the victim / State / complainant will be at
liberty to move an application for cancellation of
bail.
It is made clear that these observations are only for the purposes
of deciding the bail application. The trial Court will decide the case on
its own merits without being influenced by any observation made
herein-above.
It is directed that the applicant will appear before the
Investigating Officer for co-operating in the investigation on 29/08/2022.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Pawan
