‘Liberty has to be balanced with duty’: HC denies bail to Faruqui
NEW DELHI: The Madhya Pradesh high court on Thursday refused to release stand-up comic Munawar Faruqui on bail, holding that he was prima facie (on the first impression) guilty of hurting others’ religious sentiments “under the garb of stand-up comedy” during a public show staged in Indore on January 1.
In his 10-page order dismissing Faruqui’s bail plea, justice Rohit Arya also urged the states to strive to ensure that the “ecosystem and sustenance of coexistence in our welfare society is not polluted by negative forces”.
The court emphasised that “liberty of an individual has to be balanced with his duties and obligations towards his fellow citizens”, adding that “mutual respect, faith and trust amongst all citizens of India are basic tenets of coexistence, in a welfare society governed by the principles of rule of law”.
The court brushed aside Faruqui’s defence that although he was present at the show in Indore, he did not say anything that day.
He had also contended that there was no need for him to remain behind bars because the alleged offences of hurting religious sentiments and violating Covid-19 protocol were punishable with a maximum jail term of only three years.
Opining on the merit of the case, the high court held: “The evidence/material collected so far
that in an organised public show under the garb of standup comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicant.”
By a common order, the court also dismissed the bail plea of Nalin, a co-accused in the case. Apart from Faruqui and Nalin, three others named as accused in the first information report (FIR) are Edwin Anthony, Prakhar Vyas and Priyam Vyas.
Commenting on the high court’s order, senior advocate Vivek Tankha, who represented Faruqui, said: “I am disappointed with the order, to say the least.” About the prospect of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court, Tankha said that a decision would be taken by the parties soon.
Faruqui was arrested on January 1 on the complaint of Hindu
Rakshak Sangathan convener Eklavya Singh Gaud, who is also a son of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Malini Singh Gaud, in Indore, just before he was about to start his performance at a restaurant. He has been in jail since.
The high court, in its order, held that Faruqui’s was not a case of “no evidence”; nor can the stand-up comedian’s complacency be ruled out at this stage, especially when a similar FIR had been registered against him in Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh too.
Justice Arya also referred to the accusations made by complainant in this case, Gaud, that Faruqui had been cracking “filthy jokes against Hindu Gods, Lord Shri Ram and Goddess Seeta” in the social media for the last 18 months.
On this, the judge said that “there is nothing on record to the contrary”, pointing out that Faruqui had not countered Gaud’s allegations about his jokes on Hindu Gods in social media.
In the order, the judge cited Article 51A of the Constitution on the Fundamental Duties to emphasise that “every right is coupled with duty” and that the duties and obligations are inherent thereunder.
“Intensity of crime and degree of involvement with an element of mens rea (criminal intent) adjudge impact of crime in the society,” said the court, adding that what is punishable under Section 295A (hurting religious beliefs and sentiments) of the Indian Penal Code was the intention and the manner in which statements were made.
“Before parting with the case, it is considered apposite to observe that our country is a beautiful country and sets an example of coexistence amid diversities; be it religion, language, culture, geographical locations etc., to the world at large,” justice Arya said in his order.
The judge further said: “It is the constitutional duty of every citizen of the country and also of the states to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India irrespective of religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities and to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.”
Former additional solicitor general and senior advocate Sidharth Luthra was also critical of the order: “After registration of an FIR and completion of the police custody, continued incarceration during investigation must be connected with the needs of investigators. In a case where the incident is long past and the individual is in custody, as in the case of Mr Faruqui, who was doing a stand-up comedy, there is no reason for his continuance in custody.”
Luthra added: “It is open to the state to effectively prosecute those who breach the law based on the allegations but the rejection of bail by the high court is a matter of concern as it negates the resumption of innocence which applies to every individual and cannot be cast aside.”