'Words Not Proper But No Intent To Hurt Religious Sentiments': MP High Court Grants Relief To Man Booked Over Remarks On Goddess Sita

Justice Devnarayan Mishra observed:

"From the video, it is clear that the applicant/poet has clearly stated that the inmates of Lanka or women of Lanka were discussing in such a way that Mata Sita will perish whole Lanka. In the context, in which the aforesaid couplet (doha) was recited, the word selection may not be proper, but at this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant was intending to hurt the sentiments of the public or wanted to create any mischief, riot, affray or disharmony among the people on the basis of religion."

The Court was hearing an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalises statements conducing to public mischief.

According to the prosecution, the applicant was hosting a programme organised by U.S. Agro Seeds Company in which devotional singer Shahnaz Akhtar was performing. During a break in the performance, the applicant allegedly recited a doha relating to the abduction of Goddess Sita and made certain remarks that were perceived as disrespectful towards Lord Ram and Goddess Sita.

Counsel for the applicant contended that he was merely narrating a conversation among the residents of Lanka after Sita's abduction and intended to convey that even Mandodari, Ravana's wife, was frightened by the incident. It was argued that the words "सीता नाश कराएगी" ("Sita would destroy") were part of that narration and did not reflect the applicant's personal views.

The applicant further submitted that, after objections were raised by some members of the audience, he immediately apologised. A video recording was also produced showing him publicly expressing regret and seeking forgiveness.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the allegations were serious in nature and that granting anticipatory bail would send a wrong message to society, encouraging irresponsible statements capable of hurting the sentiments of the majority community.

After considering the facts of the case and the submissions advanced by both sides, the Court held that, at this stage, there was nothing to suggest that the applicant intended to hurt religious sentiments or incite unrest on religious grounds. Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application.