The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday dismissed the bail petition of an accused charged with making insulting and objectionable comments on Facebook to create disharmony in society.
The single bench of Justice Alka Sarin passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Vijender Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of CrPC, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.485 dated 13.08.2020 under Sections 153-A, 295-A, and 505 of IPC and Section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar.
The facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged on the complaint made by Savita Kajal and Kuldeep Bhukkal wherein it has been alleged that Savita Kajal uploaded a post of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar on her Facebook ID and petitioner made insulting and objectionable comments on the post to create disharmony in society. It is further the allegation that the petitioner uses filthy language and makes objectionable comments against women belonging to Scheduled Castes. It is also the allegation that insulting comments have been made by the petitioner against Muslim women.
The complainants produced a photocopy of the derogatory comments posted by the petitioner on Facebook which was taken into possession by the police as a separate memo. On 24.09.2020, the petitioner again joined the investigation and, thereafter, on the basis of sufficient evidence, was arrested. The investigation, in this case, was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ingredients of Section 153 A, 295-A, and 505 are not made out in the present case and he has been in custody since 24.09.2020.
The Court after considering the arguments put forward by the Council observed that, “A bare perusal of the screenshots of the said posts prima facie reveals that the posts are not only derogatory in nature but are made against particular communities. In fact, the petitioner along with the petition has appended as Annexure P-2 just one of the posts whereas a number of posts as made by the petitioner has been attached with the status report. The Court is refraining itself from commenting on the nature of the posts made by the petitioner herein at this stage. Suffice it to say that freedom of speech does not entitle a person to make derogatory remarks/posts against any community or gender.” With the above observation, the court dismissed the bail petition of the accused.
Read Also: Even with the court’s backing, a Right to be Forgotten law will be almost impossible to implement
IN MY OPINION, JUDICIARIES ARE UNNECESSARILY PAMPERING CERTAIN SECTION OF PEOPLE WHO WISH TO DICTATE TERMS TO CITIZENS BY MONEYPOWER, MUSCLEPOWER OR AUTOCRACY. IF ANYONE IS MISUSING SOCIAL MEDIA, RULES SHOULD BE LAID SO STRICT TO STRIP HIM OUT OF SOCIAL MEDIA.