PREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 152/2021 under Section 188/269/270/153-A IPC, 3 Epidemics Disease Act and 51(b) of Disaster Management Act registered at PS Connaught Place.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody in the above-noted FIR since 10th August, 2021 and all offences except Section 153-A IPC are bailable offences. Further, even going through the various video footages, the petitioner while giving his interview to the Press or making any statement has not passed any offensive remarks against any particular religion which could incite violence and hence has committed no offence under Section 153-A IPC. As per the footages available the event took place from 10.00 AM to 11.45 AM when no offence under Section 153-A IPC was committed and the petitioner had left the spot at around 2.00 PM. Thus the slogan shouting which took place at 4.00 PM and is the genesis of the FIR in question was not done by the petitioner and the petitioner was not even present at the spot at that time and hence cannot be prosecuted for the act of the people who indulged in slogan shouting at 4.00 PM. It is stated that even as per the statement made to the Press, the petitioner 's demand was of a Hindu Rashtra which cannot be said to be an offence under Section 153-A IPC. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as (1997) 7 SCC 431 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of A.P.; (1988) 1 SCC 668 Ramesh S/o Chotalal Dalal Vs. UOI; (2021) SCC Online SC 258 Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors.; (2021) SCC Online Bombay 1127 Sunaina Holey Vs. State of Maharashtra and (1994) SCC Online Bombay 461 Joseph Bain D 'Souza and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

(3.) Learned APP for the State opposing the bail application states that the petitioner was a co-organizer of the event and is thus responsible for the incitement which continued till the evening. Even in the interview given by the petitioner along with the co-accused Pinki Chaudhary inciting words against the other community have been stated. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the case. Even the decision in Sunaina Holey relates to a facebook post and is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is stated that video coverage of the incident clearly makes out the offence punishable under Section 153-A IPC. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2004) 4 SCC 684 State of Karnataka Vs. Praveen Bhai Thogadia.