ANIRUDH SINGH AZAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail on behalf of the two persons who are accused in Deoghar p.s. Case No. 14 dated 11th August 1975 under Rules 33(5) and 36(6) of the Defence of India Rules (I think the first informant meant Rule 36(6) read with Rule 43(1) of the Defence of India Rules). Petitioner Dilip Kumar Sharma was arrested on the 11th of August 1975 and is in jail since then. Petitioner Anirudh Singh Azad was arrested on 11th of September 1975 and is in jail since then.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioners as contained in the first information report is that they were distributing pamphlet which, in the opinion of the first informant, was of a prejudicial character, bringing into hatred or contempt and also exciting disaffection towards the Government of India, A copy of the pamphlet which these petitioners were distributing has been produced before me. Besides distributing pamphlet, petitioner Dilip Kumar Sharma was found to be in possession of a book captioned "Viplabi Shahidon Ki Amar Gatha-Rakta Pankti-yan", by Sri Sudhir Kumar Rai, Editor of Bihar-Bani, The book has also been produced before me. I have gone cursorily through the contents of the book. It has been published on the 15th of August 1974 and the index of the articles contained in it shows that the author has depicted the life and sacrifices of some of the great-men of India. It bears a foreward by Sri Krishna Ballabh Sahay, one of the ex-Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar. I do not see how this book could be treated as a book inciting disaffection towards the Government of India or to bring it into hatred or contempt of the public. The book depicts the life of great men, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Dr. Rajendra Pra-sad and of several martyrs who went to the gallows for the country. Amongst the men of the past ages, the book describes of the lives of Rama, Krishna, Birsho Bhagwan and of the like. A book which contains the life of such persons, which has inspired the nation in the past, cannot be considered as a book inciting disaffection or hatred or contempt against the Government of India. About the book, I will leave it at that.

(3.) I will take the pamphlet. Bitter Criticism is contained in it against the measures taken by the Government by declaring the state of Emergency in the country. The pamphlet has described Shrimati Indira Gandhi as a dictator and a warning is contained in the pamphlet that dictators go the same way as Ravana, Kansa, Julius Caeser and Hitler. It further contains an advice to the nation that the Government by Shrimati Indira Gandhi must be opposed fearlessly, and for that purpose, it has advised the people to come to the fold of Chhatra San-gharsh and Lok Sangharsh Samitees. Distribution of this pamphlet has been described by the first informant as "prejudicial act" within the meaning of Rule 36(6) of the Defence of India Rules. According to the first informant, the contents of the pamphlet were intended to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. The pamphlet was also intended to promote feelings of enmity and hatred among the different classes of persons of India. I do not find in what way the contents of, the pamphlet could be treated as one promoting feeling of enmity and hatred among different classes of persons. A! plain reading of the pamphlet shows that it is not so. The entire attempt of the pamphlet is to direct the attention of the people in India towards the Government by Shrimati Indira Gandhi. The pamphlet intends the people to remove that Government. On these facts the question' which immediately arises is whether the contents of the pamphlet could, be termed as "prejudicial act" within the meaning of Rule 36(6) of the Defence of India Rules.