Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Spent About 7 Months In Jail Over 'Abusive' Songs On Hindu Deities

Granting relief to the accused (Rajveer Singh Yadav), a bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that there is no evidence that either due to his act or conduct, public order had ever been disturbed.

Briefly put, a joint team of the Mirzapur police in September last year arrested several individuals, including a folk singer (Saroj Sargam) and the applicant, Yadav, after songs containing indecent comments about Mother Durga went viral during Navratri.

It may be noted that the Police's initial press note identified the applicant as the 'mastermind' behind the alleged controversial songs/content. Additionally, he was also accused of editing a book, which also hurt the feelings of the Hindu Community.

Consequently, he was booked under Sections 299, 196,353, 61(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) BNS. Seeking bail in the case, the applicant moved the HC.

It was his primary case that the FIR was initially lodged only against co-accused Saroj Sargam, and the applicant's name appeared solely in the statement of the co-accused recorded before the Police.

It was argued that apart from this statement and the allegation that the applicant is the Editor of an allegedly controversial book, there is no other evidence against him on record.

It was stressed that merely being the Editor of the alleged book, he could not be said to have hurt the religious sentiments of a community.

Lastly, he contended that at the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him and thus his arrest was in violation of the Apex Court's Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another.

On the other hand, the State refuted the allegations against the applicant, but it could not dispute the fact that, except for the co-accused's statement and the fact that the applicant is the Editor of a 'controversial' book, there is no other evidence against him.

Crucially, the State also admitted that there is no evidence of public order being disturbed and acknowledged that the grounds of arrest had indeed not been communicated to the applicant.

Considering the facts of the case, the allegations against the applicant, and the arguments of both parties, the bench noted that there was no evidence against him apart from the co-accused's statement.

The Court also highlighted that, while a reward of ₹25,000 was declared against the applicant for allegedly evading arrest, he was arrested within two days of the FIR, thereby negating the claim that he was absconding.

Furthermore, the bench took into account that all the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate, and, except for the offence under Section 338 BNS, are punishable with a maximum term of seven years.

Noting that the applicant has been in jail for more than six months, the bench found it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. Hence, his bail plea was allowed.