Objectionable Remarks Against Community By Public Servant Have Greater Social Impact: P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a second petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by Geetu Ram Tanwar, a Superintending Engineer with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), in connection with an FIR alleging circulation of a video containing derogatory remarks against a particular community.

Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "The material collected during the course of investigation prima facie reflects that objectionable and derogatory remarks targeting a particular community have been made in the course of the conversation in which the petitioner was an active participant. The language allegedly used is not only abusive in nature but is also prima facie capable of inciting resentment, hostility and communal disharmony against a specific community. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the conversation was private in nature cannot, at this stage, dilute the seriousness of the allegations, particularly when the contents thereof entered the public domain and allegedly generated communal tension in the area."

The Court pointed that the petitioner admittedly holds the post of Superintending Engineer in UHBVNL and is a senior public functionary entrusted with responsibilities affecting the public at large.

"A person occupying such a position is expected to maintain restraint, uphold constitutional morality and exhibit sensitivity towards all sections of Society irrespective of caste, creed or religion. The use of derogatory and abusive remarks against a particular community, when allegedly made by a public servant holding a position of authority, assumes greater significance and carries a potential social impact," it observed.

'Speech Act Theory'

Referring to "speech Act theory', delineated by John Searle and J.L. Austin, the Court observed, "spoken words do not merely have a communicative purpose but also perform actions. The 'Locutionary Act' is the literal production of the sounds and words: the basic physical act of saying something with a specific grammer and meaning. Yet, the 'illocutionary Act' is the core purpose behind the words, representing what the speaker is actually doing – – such as promising, warning or commanding. Whereas the “Perlocutionary Act” is the effect or consequence the utterance has on the listener."

Words Be Spoken With Care Lest They Cause Heartbreak

The Court added that words have a consequential meaning, they carry an emotional, psychological and even a physical impact. Intentions are carried through the words. That is why the learned wise people caution that words be spoken with care lest they cause an altercation, misunderstanding or even a heartbreak.

Any unwitting or unintentional remarks passed against a community, repeated articulations or even a one-time intense diatribe or even a forceful articulation can have cascading ramification. Against a person such an inquiry caused by words could still be sutured, but against a community, the injury multiplies. Therefore, the healing hand needs to be in tandem, it observed.

The case arises out of FIR, registered at Police Station Sonepat City under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the prosecution, a video clip containing inflammatory and abusive remarks targeting a specific community was circulated on social media, leading to public resentment and disturbance of communal harmony. The petitioner was allegedly part of the conversation in which such remarks were made.

Senior Advocate Hemant Bassi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the FIR was a result of departmental rivalry and personal vendetta. It was contended that the petitioner, who has an unblemished service record of nearly 27 years, had earlier reported misconduct against certain officers, who then conspired to malign his reputation. The petitioner also questioned the authenticity of the video, alleging possible manipulation using artificial intelligence tools, and argued that the conversation was private in nature and did not amount to a public act intended to incite communal disharmony.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petition was not maintainable as it was a second anticipatory bail application without any substantial change in circumstances. It was pointed out that the petitioner's earlier plea had been dismissed as withdrawn and a subsequent application before the trial court had also been rejected.

The Court further held that the petitioner's position as a senior public functionary imposed a higher duty to exercise restraint and sensitivity. It also noted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and the possibility of interference could not be ruled out.

Relying on the Supreme Court's case in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., the Court reiterated that the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation is not, by itself, a ground for grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving serious allegations.

Finding no prima facie grounds to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail, the Court held that the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it.

Mr. Hemant Bassi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate and

Ms. Saloni Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Shobhit Rapria, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

 Title: Geetu Ram Tanwar v. State of Haryana and another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 172

Click here to read order