Kerala High Court

P.C. George vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

B.A.No.1874 of 2025
                                   1




                                                           CR
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1946
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 1874 OF 2025
 CRIME NO.49/2025 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

               P.C. GEORGE
               AGED 74 YEARS
               S/O. CHACKOCHAN, PLATHOTTAM HOUSE, ARUVITHARA
               P.O, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122


               BY ADVS.
               SRUTHY N. BHAT
               P.M.RAFIQ
               AJEESH K.SASI
               M.REVIKRISHNAN
               RAHUL SUNIL
               SRUTHY K.K
               SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
               NANDITHA S.
               AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
               K.ARAVIND MENON
               SRI.P.VIJAYABHANU, SENIOR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, PIN - 682031
      2        MUHAMMED SHIHAB
               S/O SAIDUMUHAMMAD KATTANAL, ERATTUPETTAH
               NADAKKAL PO, KOTTAYAM (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 2ND
               RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 19-02-25 IN CRL MA
               1/25)
 B.A.No.1874 of 2025
                                         2




               BY ADVS.
               ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
               S.RAJEEV
               DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-10)
               SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL.
               P.P.
               SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.
               V.VINAY
               M.S.ANEER
               SARATH K.P.
               K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
               ANILKUMAR C.R.
               DIPA V.



        THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2025,           THE   COURT   ON       21.02.2025   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.1874 of 2025
                                   3




                                                            "CR"
                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------
                        B.A.No.1874 of 2025
                    -------------------------------
              Dated this the 21st day of February, 2025


                              ORDER

If custodial interrogation of an accused is not necessary in

connection with the investigation of a case, can a court of law

grant anticipatory bail in all cases? If the maximum punishment

that can be imposed for the offence alleged in a case is below

seven years, whether a court of law can grant bail to an

accused in a case without considering the allegation against the

accused and the antecedents of the accused? These are the

questions to be decided in this case.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.49/2025 of

Erattupettah Police Station, Kottayam District. The above case

is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable

under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and also under Section 120(o)

of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short 'KP Act').

3. The case is registered in connection with a Channel

discussion on Janam TV in which the petitioner also

participated. Petitioner is a former Member of the Legislative

Assembly (MLA) of Poonjar Constituency. On 05.01.2025, from

the residence of the petitioner, he made a statement in the

channel discussion. It is extracted in the statement filed by the

investigating officer, which is like this: "All Muslims in India

are terrorists and communalists, not a single non-

terrorist Muslim lives in India, Muslims are looters who

plunder the country's wealth. Lakhs of Hindus and

Christians have been slaughtered by Muslims to create a

Muslim state. All Indian Muslims should go to Pakistan.

All Muslims are communal demons and scoundrels."

Based on the above statement in a live telecast discussion on

Janam TV, the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint, and

based on the same, the above crime is registered. The

petitioner apprehends arrest in the above case. Hence this bail

application is filed.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Adv. P. Vijayabhanu

assisted by Adv. Sruthy N. Bhat, for the petitioner, Adv. P.

Narayanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State

and Adv. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent, defacto complainant.

5. The learned Senior Counsel, Adv. P. Vijayabhanu

argued the matter in detail. The Senior Counsel submitted that

the petitioner is a senior politician in the State and he is aged

74 years. The Senior Counsel submitted that the incident took

place during a channel debate in which the co-panelist being

fully aware of the temperament of the petitioner, provoked and

insinuated him, at the end of which the petitioner on a slip of

the tongue and in the heat of the moment ended up saying the

statement which resulted in the registration of the above crime.

The Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a senior

politician in the State and has been representing the Poonjar

Constituency continuously for about 30 years. The Senior

Counsel submitted that the nature and temperament of the

petitioner are well-known to all Keralites. The Senior Counsel

submitted that, even if the petitioner made such a spontaneous

reaction, the people in the State would take it lightly. It is also

submitted by the Senior Counsel that, immediately after the

debate, the petitioner published a Facebook post in which he

submitted an apology for making such a statement. The Senior

Counsel submitted on behalf of the petitioner an unconditional

apology for making such a statement and reiterated that it was

a slip of the tongue. The Senior Counsel also submitted that

the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences

alleged is three years imprisonment or fine or with both. The

Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014 (8)

SCC 273] and submitted that the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is not necessary. The Senior Counsel submitted that

the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court

grant him bail.

6. Adv. P. Narayanan, the Public Prosecutor and Adv. S.

Rajeev, who appeared for the defacto complainant seriously

opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted

that there are criminal antecedents to the petitioner and the

petitioner is involved in Crime No.167/2003 of Kidangoor Police

Station, Crime No.349/2017 of Museum Police Station, Crime

No.67/2018 of Pala Police Station, Crime No.1488/2018 of

Kottayam West Police Station, Crime No.677/2022 of Fort Police

Station and Crime No.487/2022 of Palarivattom Police Station.

The Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that, this is a case in

which the petitioner flouted the directions issued by this Court

in an earlier bail order. In violation of the conditions imposed in

the earlier bail order, the present statement is being made.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that, if this Court takes this

lightly, a wrong message will go to society, that anybody can

make any statement and thereafter they can give an apology.

The Public Prosecutor took me through the averments in the

FIR registered against the petitioner earlier and also the bail

order passed by the learned Magistrate and this Court earlier.

Adv. S. Rajeev also reiterated the above contentions. Adv. S.

Rajeev submitted that the statement made by the petitioner

will attract the offences alleged and this Court may not

entertain this bail application.

7. In reply to the contentions of the Public Prosecutor,

the Senior Counsel, Adv. P. Vijayabhanu took me through the

conditions imposed by this Court in the earlier bail order. The

Senior Counsel submitted that this Court only stated that the

petitioner shall not make any speech or statement which would

tend to result in the commission of offences under Sections

153A or 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The Senior Counsel

submitted that it is not a speech or a statement. The petitioner

was only participating in a debate in a channel discussion.

Therefore, there is no violation of the conditions imposed by

this Court. The Senior Counsel also submitted that, even if the

words used by the petitioner are accepted in toto, the offences

alleged are not attracted. The Senior Counsel relied on the

judgment of the Apex Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State

of Maharashtra and Ors. [2024 (4) SCC 156], Balwant

Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1995 SC 1785],

Manzar Sayeed Khan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra &

Ors. [AIR 2007 SC 2074] and also Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v.

State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1997 SC 3483].

8. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the respondents. This is a case in which the

offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections

196(1)(a) and 299 of the BNS and also under Section 120(o) of

the KP Act. Section 196(1)(a) of the BNS deals with promoting

enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race,

place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts

prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. Section 299 of the

BNS says about deliberate and malicious acts, intended to

outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or

religious beliefs. Section 120(o) of the K.P. Act says that, if any

person causing, through any means of communication, a

nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or

anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a

messenger, is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend

to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand

rupees or with both.

9. Before coming to the facts of this case, I am forced

to consider the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which is

narrated by the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is an accused

in Crime No.677/2022 of Fort Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram and that case was registered on

30.04.2022 alleging an offence punishable under Section 153A

of the Indian Penal Code which corresponds to Section 196 of

the BNS. That was a case registered based on a speech by the

petitioner in 'Ananathapuri Hindhu Maha Sammelanam' held at

Thiruvananthapuram. It will be better to extract the relevant

portion of the above FIR:

"xxxxxx ഇനന്ത്യ എന്ന ഹഹിന്ദുസസ്ഥാനനെ എത്രയയും നപെനട്ടെന്നന

ഹഹിന്ദു രസ്ഥാഷ്ട്രമസ്ഥായഹി പ്രഖന്ത്യസ്ഥാപെഹിക്കണനമനയും മുസസ്ലീങ്ങൾ അവരുനട

ഹഹസ്ഥാട്ടെലുകളഹിലുയും മറയും വരുന്ന ഇതര മതസർക്കന വനന്ത്യത

വരുത്തുന്നതഹിനുള്ള തുള്ളഹിമരുന ആഹസ്ഥാരപെദസ്ഥാർത്ഥങ്ങളഹിൽ

ഹചേർതന നെൽകുന്നതസ്ഥായയും മുസഹിങ്ങൾ ഇനന്ത്യ മഹസ്ഥാരസ്ഥാജന്ത്യയും

പെഹിടഹിച്ചടക്കസ്ഥാൻ ശ്രമഹിക്കുന്നതസ്ഥായയും അവരുനട ജനെസയുംഖന്ത്യ

വർദഹിപഹിച്ചന മുസസ്ലീയും രസ്ഥാജന്ത്യമസ്ഥാക്കസ്ഥാൻ ശ്രമഹിക്കുന്നതസ്ഥായയും മുസഹിയും

പുഹരസ്ഥാഹഹിതർ ഭക്ഷണതഹിൽ മൂന പ്രസ്ഥാവശന്ത്യയും തുപഹിയഹശഷയും

വഹിതരണയും നചേയ്യുന്നതസ്ഥായയും മുസസ്ലീങ്ങൾ ഹഹിന്ദുക്കളുനട പെണയും

തട്ടെഹിനയടുക്കുന്നതഹിനുഹവണഹി നെടത്തുന്ന മസ്ഥാളുകളഹിലുയും മറയും

ഹഹിന്ദുക്കൾ ഒരു രൂപെ ഹപെസ്ഥാലുയും നകസ്ഥാടുക്കസ്ഥാൻ പെസ്ഥാടഹില്ല എനയും മറയും

പ്രസയുംഗഹിക്കുന്നതസ്ഥായഹി കസ്ഥാണുകയയും ടഹി പ്രസയുംഗയും ഹഹിന്ദു-മുസസ്ലീയും

സമുദസ്ഥായ അയുംഗങ്ങൾക്കഹിടയഹിൽ മതസ്പർദ വളർത്തുന്നതുയും

പെരസ്പരയും വവരമുണസ്ഥാക്കുന്നതുയും സസൗഹൃദ അനരസ്ലീക്ഷയും

തകർക്കുന്നതുമസ്ഥാണന എന്നന എനെഹിക്കന ഉതമഹബസ്ഥാദന്ത്യയും

വന്നതഹിൻനറെ അടഹിസസ്ഥാനെതഹിൽ മുൻ MLA പെഹി സഹി

ഹജസ്ഥാർജഹിനനെതഹിനര ഹഫസ്ഥാർട്ടെന ഹപെസ്ഥാലസ്ലീസന ഹസ്റ്റേഷൻ വകയും

677/2022 U/s 153 A. IPC പ്രകസ്ഥാരയും ഞസ്ഥാൻ ഈ ഹകസന

രജഹിസ്റ്റേർ നചേയ്യുന. സയുംഭവസലയും ഇവഹിനട നെഹിനയും 500 മസ്ലീറ്റർ

വടക്കന മസ്ഥാറെഹിയസ്ഥാണന."

10. I extracted the Malayalam portion of the FIR itself,

just to show the way in which a politician is making a speech at

public functions in a country like India, even though it is a

conference of the Hindu community! Based on the above FIR,

the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The

learned Magistrate granted bail in CMP No.340/2022 in Crime

No.677/2022 of Fort Police Station, even though the allegations

are serious, with the following conditions:

"(1) The accused is released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

(2) The accused is directed to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required through written requisition.

(3) The accused 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(4) The accused is directed not to make and propagate controversial statement which may hurt the religious sentiments of others while on bail.

(5) If any of the conditions are violated, the bail granted hereby will be cancelled."

[underline supplied]

11. Thereafter the petitioner made a speech near

Vennala, Ernakulam, on the 9th day after the above incident. It

will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above FIR in

Crime No.487/2022 of Palarivattom Police Station also, which is

in Malayalam.

"xxxxxxx നെബഹി തഹിരുഹമനെഹിയനട തുപൽ ബർക്കതസ്ഥാണന , അതറെസ്ഥാണന,

സസ്വർണ്ണ കള്ളക്കടതന, ലസൗ ജഹിഹസ്ഥാദന എന്നഹിവ നെടത്തുന്നതന മുസസ്ലീയും

സമുദസ്ഥായസ്ഥാരസ്ഥാണ,ന MDMA മുതലസ്ഥായ മയക്കുമരുനകൾ

പെഹിടഹിക്കനപടുന്നതന കൂടുതലുയും മുസസ്ലീയും സമുദസ്ഥായക്കസ്ഥാരഹിൽ നെഹിന്നസ്ഥാണന , മുസസ്ലീയും

മത വഹിശസ്വസ്ഥാസഹികൾക്കന മക്കക്കന ഹപെസ്ഥാകസ്ഥാൻ ഗവൺനമനന സബനസഹിഡഹി

അനുവദഹിക്കുന, ഹഹിന്ദു മത വഹിശസ്വസ്ഥാസഹികൾക്കന KSRTC ബസഹിൽ

ശബരഹിമലയഹിൽ ഹപെസ്ഥാകസ്ഥാൻ ഇരട്ടെഹിക്കസ്ഥാശന ഈടസ്ഥാക്കുന, ഓതന

പെള്ളഹിക്കൂടതഹിനല മസൗലവഹിമസ്ഥാർക്കന ഹക്ഷമനെഹിധഹിയഹിൽ നെഹിനയും ഫണയും

നപെൻഷനുയും അനുവദഹിക്കുന, നെന്യൂനെപെക്ഷ കൃസന്ത്യസ്ഥാനെഹിക്കന ഹവദപെഠനെയും

നെടത്തുന്നതഹിനെന ഒനയും നെൽകുന്നഹില്ല എനയും മുസസ്ലീങ്ങൾക്കന എനഹിനെന

ഇത്രക്കുയും ഫണന നകസ്ഥാടുക്കുന എനയും, എല്ലസ്ഥാ പെസ്ഥാർട്ടെഹികളഹിലുയും മുസസ്ലീയും

തസ്ലീവ്രവസ്ഥാദഹികൾ നുഴഞന കയറുന എനയും മറയും പ്രസയുംഗഹിച്ചന മതങ്ങൾ

തമഹിൽ ശത്രുത വളർത്തുന്നതഹിനുയും ഐകന്ത്യ സയുംരക്ഷണതഹിനെന

വഹിഘസ്ഥാതയും സൃഷഹിക്കുന്ന തരതഹിലുയും സർഹവസ്ഥാപെരഹി ഇസസ്ഥായും

മതവഹിശസ്വസ്ഥാസഹികനള വ്രണനപടുത്തുന്ന തരതഹിലുള്ള വഹിഹദസ്വഷ പ്രസയുംഗയും

കരുതഹിക്കൂട്ടെഹി നെടതഹിയ കസ്ഥാരന്ത്യതഹിനെന ഹപെസ്ഥാലസ്ലീസന ഇൻറെലഹിജൻസന

വഹിഭസ്ഥാഗതഹിൽ നെഹിനയും ലഭഹിച്ച റെഹിഹപസ്ഥാർടയും ഓഡഹിഹയസ്ഥാ കഹിപയും ലഭഹിച്ചതന

പെരഹിഹശസ്ഥാധഹിച്ചന ആയതഹിനന അടഹിസസ്ഥാനെതഹിൽ തത്സമയയും ഹസ്റ്റേഷൻ

ചേസ്ഥാർജഹിലുള്ള പെസ്ഥാലസ്ഥാരഹിവട്ടെയും ഹപെസ്ഥാലസ്ലീസന ഹസ്റ്റേഷൻ സബന ഇൻനസ്പക്ടർ

രതസ്ലീഷന ടഹി എസന ആയ ഞസ്ഥാൻ ഹസ്റ്റേഷൻ വകയും 487/22 U/S 153 A,

295 A IPC പ്രകസ്ഥാരയും ഹകസന രജഹിസ്റ്റേർ നചേയ്യുന."

12. As I mentioned earlier, the above FIR was registered

immediately after the learned Magistrate released the petitioner

on bail in Crime No.677/2022. After registration of Crime

No.487/2022, a bail cancellation application was filed before

the learned Magistrate to cancel the bail order dated

01.05.2022 in CMP No.340/2022 in Crime No.677/2022 of Fort

Police Station. The learned Magistrate by order dated

25.05.2022, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner in

Crime No.677/2022. Thereafter the petitioner filed B.A. Nos.

4094/2022 & 3971/2022 before this Court for bail in Crime

No.677/2022 of Fort Police Station and Crime No.487/2022 of

Palarivattom Police Station. After hearing both sides, this Court

as per common order dated 27.05.2022 in B.A. Nos.4094/2022

& 3971/2022 granted bail to the petitioner, by showing

indulgence. It will be better to extract condition No. (iv) in B.A.

No.4094/2022:

"(iv) Petitioner shall not make any speech or statement which would tend to result in commission of offences under Sections 153A or 295A of the Indian Penal Code;"

It will be better to extract condition No. (iv) in B.A.

No.3971/2022:

"(iv) Petitioner shall not make any speech or statement which would tend to result in commission of offences under Sections 153A or 295A of the Indian Penal Code;"

13. Thereafter, the present case is registered as Crime

No.49/2025 alleging offences punishable under Sections 196(1)

(a) and 299 of the BNS and Section 120(o) of the KP Act.

14. In addition to the above, some other cases are also

registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is an accused

in Crime No.349/2017 of Museum Police Station which is

registered under Section 294(b) & 323 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. To show the nature of the petitioner, it will be

better to extract the brief facts of the case narrated in Column

No.12 of the FIR in Crime No.349/2017. According to the

prosecution, a poor food supplier has to hear abusive and filthy

language from the petitioner for delay in supplying food! I

know that the wording alleged to be said by the petitioner

cannot be extracted in a judicial order. But to consider the bail

application, I am forced to extract the same:

"പ്രതഹികൾക്കന ആഹസ്ഥാരനമതഹിക്കസ്ഥാൻ തസ്ഥാമസഹിച്ചതഹിലുള്ള

വഹിഹരസ്ഥാധതസ്ഥാൽ 27.02.2017-ാസ്ഥായും തസ്ലീയതഹി ഉച്ചക്കന 2.00 മണഹിഹയസ്ഥാനട

വഞഹിയൂർ വഹിഹല്ലജഹിൽ കുനകുഴഹി വസ്ഥാർഡഹിൽ പെസ്ഥാളയയും MLA Hostel- ൻനനറെ

പെടഹിഞസ്ഥാറെന വശയും സഹിതഹി നചേയ്യുന്ന നനെയസ്ഥാർ ബനഹളസ്ഥാക്കഹിനന 2-ാസ്ഥായും

നെഹിലയഹിനല 1-ാസ്ഥായും പ്രതഹിയനട മുറെഹിയസ്ഥായ 2C യഹിൽ

ആഹസ്ഥാരവുമസ്ഥാനയതഹിയ ആവലസ്ഥാതഹിക്കസ്ഥാരനനെ 1-ാസ്ഥായും പ്രതഹി എനനടസ്ഥാ

വമനര, പുലയസ്ഥാടഹിഹമസ്ഥാനനെ എന്നന വഹിളഹിച്ചന വക നകസ്ഥാണന

ആവലസ്ഥാതഹിക്കസ്ഥാരനന വസ്ഥായന നപെസ്ഥാതഹിയടഹിചയും 2-ാസ്ഥായും പ്രതഹി

ആവലസ്ഥാതഹിക്കസ്ഥാരൻനനറെ വലതു നചേകഹിട്ടെതടഹിച്ചന നെസ്ലീർഹക്കസ്ഥാൾ

സയുംഭവഹിപഹിചയും പ്രതഹികൾ കൃതന്ത്യതഹിനെന പെരസ്പരയും ഉത്സസ്ഥാഹഹികളുയും

സഹസ്ഥായഹികളുമസ്ഥായഹി നെഹിന്നന പ്രവർതഹിച്ചന ഹമൽ വകുപകൾ പ്രകസ്ഥാരമുള്ള

കുറ്റയും നചേയഹിരഹിക്കുനഎനള്ളതന "

15. Crime No.67/2018 of Pala Police Station has also

been registered against the petitioner under Section 228A of

the Indian Penal Code for disclosing the name of the victim in

Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station during the

Media One special edition program.

16. Crime No.1488/2018 of Kottayam West Police

Station was registered against the petitioner based on a

complaint filed by Sister Renit M.J. The offence alleged was

under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. It will be better to

extract Column No.12 of the FIR in Crime No.1488/2018 of

Kottayam West Police Station also:

"പ്രതഹിക്കന ആവലസ്ഥാതഹിക്കസ്ഥാരഹിയനട മസ്ഥാനെനത

അധഹിഹക്ഷപെഹിക്കണനമനള്ള ഉഹദ്ദേശഹതസ്ഥാടുയും, കരുതഹലസ്ഥാടുയും കൂടഹി

08/09/2018 തസ്ലീയതഹി ഉച്ചയന ഹശഷയും ഹകസ്ഥാട്ടെയയും പ്രസന കബഹിൽ വച്ചന

പ്രതഹി ആവലസ്ഥാതഹിക്കസ്ഥാരഹിനയ ഹവശന്ത്യ എനയും, കൂനടയളള കനെന്ത്യസ്ഥാസസ്ലീകനള

വവദന്ത്യപെരഹിഹശസ്ഥാധനെ നെടതഹി പെരഹിശുദരസ്ഥാഹണസ്ഥാ എന്നന ഹനെസ്ഥാക്കസ്ഥായും എനയും

മറയും വസ്ഥാർതസ്ഥാ സഹമളനെയും നെടതഹി ആഹക്ഷപെഹിച്ചന ആവലസ്ഥാതഹിക്കസ്ഥാരഹിക്കുയും

മറയും അപെമസ്ഥാനെയും ഉണസ്ഥാക്കഹി എനള്ളതന."

17. These are the criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was released on bail by

this Court in the common order dated 27.05.2022 in B.A.

Nos.4094/2022 & 3971/2022 with a condition that the

petitioner shall not make any speech or statement which would

tend to result in the commission of offences under Sections

153A or 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The corresponding

Sections in the BNS to Sections 153A & 295A of the Indian

Penal Code are Sections 196 and 299 of the BNS. This Court

passed the order on 27.05.2022. Now the present case is

registered under Section 196(1)(a) and 299 of the BNS.

18. The Senior Counsel submitted that it is a slip of the

tongue and there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to

violate the directions issued by this Court. The Senior Counsel

also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Bilal Ahmed

Kaloo's case (supra), Manzar Sayeed Khan's case (supra),

Balwant Singh's case (supra) and Javed Ahmad Hajam's

case (supra). I am not going to the merit of the case to find

out whether the offence is made out from the facts and

circumstances. That is a matter to be investigated and to be

decided by a court of law, if a final report is filed. But, for the

purpose of understanding the allegation against the petitioner,

this Court directed the parties to produce a pen drive

containing the channel discussion. This Court perused the

same. I am of the prima facie opinion that, it cannot be said

that the offences under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the BNS

are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. I

am forced to say that because the Senior Counsel relied on

several Apex Court judgments to show that the offences are

not attracted. When such a contention is raised, this Court is

forced to consider that point and therefore it is observed that

prima facie the offences are attracted.

19. Then the Senior Counsel submitted that, it was a slip

of the tongue of the petitioner and the petitioner made such

words in the channel discussion because there was a

provocation from the co-panelist. The tone and tenor of the

petitioner, while making such a statement are also important. It

cannot be said that it is a slip of the tongue. I once again

record that, this finding is only for the purpose of deciding this

bail application, while such a contention is raised by the

petitioner. Then the Senior counsel said that he made such a

submission, because he was provoked by the co-panelist. I am

forced to say that, a politician like the petitioner, who has about

30 years of experience as an MLA can be provoked easily like

this, he does not deserve to continue as a political leader. The

Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner, immediately

after the channel discussion, gave an apology through social

media as evidenced by Annexure-2. This Court perused the

same. It is true that he publicly made an apology. That will

not dilute the allegation against the petitioner. As I mentioned

earlier, the petitioner is a Senior politician and was an MLA for

30 years representing a Constituency. The people will closely

watch his speech, statements and even behaviour. The

politicians should be a role model to the society. After making

abusive statements which may result in communal disharmony,

the apology given by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The

petitioner ought to have thought that he was participating in a

live coverage discussion on a channel. Lakhs and Lakhs of

people are watching the television. All the people need not

look into the Facebook post of the petitioner posted on the next

day. Therefore, I cannot agree that, simply because the

petitioner gave an apology, the offence is wiped off.

20. Then the Senior Counsel submitted that the

maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences

alleged is three years or fine or with both. The preamble of our

Constitution clearly states that, "WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA,

having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a

Sovereign Socialist 'Secular' Democratic

Republic............"(underline supplied). Article 25 to 28 of our

constitution provide for the 'right to freedom of religion' also. If

any statement is made by any citizen against the basic

structure of our Constitution, can the offenders be dealt lightly,

is a question to be decided by the Parliament. Nowadays, there

is a tendency to make statements based on religion, caste etc.

These are against the basic structure of our Constitution. These

tendencies should be nipped in the bud. If anybody violates the

same, can an offender escape from the offence even by paying

a fine alone, is a matter to be considered by the Parliament and

the Law Commission. For the offences under Sections 196(1)

(a) and 299 of the BNS, the maximum punishment that can be

imposed is three years or fine or with both. Even for a second

offender, there is no higher punishment. Here is a case where

the petitioner is continuously making statements which may

amount to serious offences. But, a mandatory jail sentence is

not prescribed for such offences. This is a serious matter to be

looked into by the Law Commission and the Parliament. The

Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Chairman of the

Law Commission of India.

21. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another

[2014 (8) SCC 273], the Apex Court observed like this:

"7. xxxxxxxxx 7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that all person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer, or unless such accused person is arrested, his conclusions, which one

may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes, envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC."

22. The apex court said that, if a police officer before

arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest

is necessary to prevent such person from committing any

further offence. Section 41 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C is relied on by the

apex court. The Apex Court never said that, in serious cases,

the arrest is not necessary. In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun

Kumar C.K. and Another [2022 (17) SCC 391], the Apex

Court observed like this:

"12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like Pocso and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean

that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. "

[underline supplied]

23. Therefore, the first and foremost thing that a court

hearing an anticipatory bail application is to consider the prima

facie case put up against the accused. The necessity of

custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds for declining

anticipatory bail. If custodial interrogation of an accused is not

necessary in connection with the investigation of a case, a

court of law cannot grant anticipatory bail in all cases in a

routine manner. Similarly, if the maximum punishment that can

be imposed for the offence alleged in a case is below seven

years, a court of law cannot grant bail to an accused in all

cases, without considering the allegation against the accused.