Not Taliban state, says court; denies bail to accused in hate slogans case
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Hindu Raksha Dal president Bhupinder Tomar alias Pinky Chaudhary in a case of alleged anti-muslim sloganeering in the Capital, saying that India was “not a Taliban state”.
Chaudhary was purportedly seen making inflammatory remarks in an interview to a local news channel on August 8, the day incendiary slogans were raised at a rally named ‘Bharat Jodo Andolan’ called at Jantar Mantar to protest “colonial-era laws”.
The video was placed as evidence before the court by the police who opposed Chaudhary’s pre-arrest bail plea.
“We are not a Taliban state. Rule of law is the sacrosanct governing principle in our plural and multicultural society. While the whole of India is celebrating Azadi ka Amrut Mahotsav, there are some minds still chained with intolerant and self-centric beliefs,” additional sessions judge Anil Antil said in his August 21 order released on Monday.
Videos of the anti-muslim sloganeering were circulated widely on social media, which triggered outrage and resulted in the Delhi Police registering a case on August 9 and the arrest of six people, including lawyer and former BJP spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay, who was granted bail on August 11.
Rejecting relief to Chaudhary, the court said “the complicity of accused in the alleged case crime is prima facie apparent from the material placed before it”.
It said the accusations are serious and the offence alleged is severe in nature, and history shows that such incidents have flared up communal tensions leading to riots “and causing loss to life and property of the general public”.
The court also reiterated that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not “absolute”.
“Nor can it be extended to transgress upon fundamental rights of other people; nor can it be expanded to the acts prejudicial to the maintenance of peace, harmony and public order; nor can it be permitted to invade and erode the secular fabric of our society. In the garb of the libertarian concept of free speech, the applicant/accused cannot be allowed to trample the Constitutional principles, which promote inclusiveness and common brotherhood,” the 10-page order noted.
The judge noted that Chaudhary’s interview was loaded with “high octane communal barbs; laced with inflammatory, insulting and threatening gestures”; and was “indicative of the calculative design on the part of the applicant to promote hatred and ill will...”
The court also observed that going by the tone and tenor of Chaudhary’s speech and the use of threatening words, “there is (a) strong possibility, if released on bail, at this stage, the applicant/ accused shall hamper the investigation, and shall influence and/or threaten the witnesses”.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who appeared for Chaudhary, contended that his client wasn’t involved in the offence and was in no way associated with the event. He alleged that the 11-minute interview clip of Chaudhary was added by the investigating officer to strengthen his case.
He also alleged that the police were harassing his client by regularly visiting him at home, office, and other places.
Opposing the pre-arrest bail plea, public prosecutor KK Sain said that Chaudhary had gone to Jantar Mantar with other members of his outfit and joined the rally as planned earlier to use it to create communal disharmony.
“...accordingly, they incited the youth to propagate against a particular religion, despite the sanction to gather refused by the competent authority,” Sain had argued.
The court observed that the probe is at a nascent stage and others are yet to be identified.