MUN MUN DUTTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 438 read with Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for grant of anticipatory bail in case of FIR No. 291 dtd. 13/5/2021, under Ss. 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), (for short 'the Act') registered at Police Station Hansi City, District Hansi.

(2.) The petitioner is a TV Artist. She made a vlog for YouTube, the extract of the vlog was down loaded and made viral. She has used the word ''Bhangi'' (for short ''objectionable terms''). Bhangi is a Sub Caste declared Scheduled Caste in North India. Total four FIRs were registered for the same incident. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court and all the FIRs were clubbed with the present FIR.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the portion of the vlog, out of context was made viral. The petitioner who is a registered voter in West Bengal, has a language barrier and had no intention to use the term in the sense it is being projected. If the entire vlog is seen, she has used the objectionable term for herself. It is further argued that no offence under Sec. 3 of the Act is made out as the ingredients of Sec. 3(1)(u) are not fulfilled. On gaining knowledge that the term used by her has hurt the sentiments of a particular community, she tendered an apology on her social media accounts.