Some mischievous persons create tension by hurting religious sentiments: Punjab & Haryana HC

Punjab and Haryana High Court Took Cognizance of Cases Against MLA’s and MP’s

On 16th October, 2020 (Friday), before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, a pre-arrest Bail application filed by the Petitioner who is an accused in FIR No. 0610 dated 25/09/2020, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 149, 109 & 295 of the IPC, registered with Police station City-1, District Mansa. 

While hearing, the bench of Justice H.S. Madaan observed that, “India is a country, which is inhabited by various people belonging to various religions, races, castes and creeds. All the people live in harmony. Mostly, people show respect for each other’s religious feelings but on some occasions, some mischievous persons tried to create tension by hurting religious sentiments of others.”

Briefly, the facts are stated that, the complainant Ugar Singh had got his statement recorded with the police to the effect that on 24.09.2020 at about 06.15 AM, while he was going to Gurudwara Sahib for paying obeisance, the Petitioner herein (Lakhveer Singh) arrived along with other occupants and assaulted him. Here, the acts attributed to the petitioner that he along with his co-accused had removed the turban of the complainant and then kicked it away, showing disrespect towards his long hair and other signs/symbols of Sikh religion (kakara) being worn by him, needs to be dealt with all the seriousness and strictness.

The Court, while denying the benefit of pre-arrest bail to petitioner/accused, contended that,

“In case, such type of incidents are viewed lightly and in a causal manner that may result in creating communal and religious tension in the society, affecting peace and tranquillity”.

Thus, the court also observed that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant grant of discretionary equitable relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, rather his custodial interrogation is found to be necessary for complete and effective investigation, so as to find out as to how the incident was planned and executed, who were the other persons involved in the planning and providing indirect help in carrying out of the incident.

Further, the court said,

“In case the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused is denied to the investigating agency that shall leave many gaps and loopholes, adversely affecting the investigation, which is uncalled for.”

Thus, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same stands dismissed.

Previous articleSmt. Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha
Next articleAdvocate appears Shirtless for online hearing: Judges shocked
T. Madiha
I am T. Madiha, a final year student of BA.LL.B from Osmania University, Hyderabad. I'm spontaneous, attentive, and a good observer. I always would like to express my prior concern in research & writing skills as it enhance me to grow for the future endeavours in the legal field. I strongly believe in Theodore Roosevelt quote by focusing on my actions rather than words as he once said - "Do what you can with all you have, wherever you are". I have sole interests on various spheres of law and wants to change the societal issues for better world. I love to live in a dynamic environment where people help others to develop their skills, my suggestions have actively been taken up in the same.