6 Jun 2023 9:11 AM GMT
The Allahabad High Court on Monday rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by a Muslim Scholar who has been accused of issuing a fatwa to kill former Shia Waqf Board chairman Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi Aka Waseem Rizvi after he converted to Hindu religion renouncing Islam.The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi rejected the bail plea of Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini who allegedly...
The Allahabad High Court on Monday rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by a Muslim Scholar who has been accused of issuing a fatwa to kill former Shia Waqf Board chairman Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi Aka Waseem Rizvi after he converted to Hindu religion renouncing Islam.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi rejected the bail plea of Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini who allegedly gave a statement on a Youtube channel that it is desirable to kill Rizvi by uttering words - Katl Wajib Hai.
The FIR, in this case, was lodged by Rizvi himself on March 18, 2023, alleging that Accused-Husaini, in his statement, said that as the killing of writer Salman Rushdie is necessary, in the same way, the killing of Rizvi is also necessary.
Rizvi also alleged that the issuance of a fatwa against him by Maulana Husaini is a conspiracy to kill him by inciting Muslims against him, as he accepted Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism). He also claimed that he has been receiving death threats since the issuance of the Fatwa and after the video was uploaded on YouTube.
Pursuant to this, Maulana Husaini was booked under Sections 115, 120B, 153A, 153B, 386, 504, 505 (2), 506 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. Thereafter, seeking anticipatory bail in the case, he moved to the High Court, wherein his counsel argued that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated.
Filing an affidavit, he stated before the Court that he did not issue any fatwa and that he had no authority to do so and whatever he stated in the alleged interview, was stated in the light of Shia school of thought, philosophy & jurisprudence.
He further stated that the alleged statement was given by him according to Islamic Jurisprudence (Shia-Jafri) based on many books, wherein it is written that according to Jafri or Imami school, the Male apostates (a person who renounces a religion) must be executed, while female apostates must be held in solitary confinement until they repent and return to Islam. It was also his stand that Apostasy from Islam is considered a crime and the “mere intention of unbelief” without expression qualifies as apostasy
Having perused his affidavit, the Court found it disturbing that the accused sought to justify his alleged utterances made on the youtube channel. The Court noted that he claimed himself to be an Islamic religious scholar and that he made the alleged statements “in light of the provisions/sermon of Holy Quran and Islamic jurisprudence” and “in the light of Shia school of thought, philosophy & jurisprudence”, however, the Court added, he did not refer to a single verse of the Holy Quran.
"Article 25 of the Constitution of India confers the Fundamental Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion by providing that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion, but this right is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The applicant does not have the right to propagate his religion in a manner which may result in an adverse effect to pubic order and he cannot propagate his religion in a manner which may be prejudicial to the health and well-being of the informant. 10. The applicant has stated in his interview that it is just to murder persons who were Muslims since birth and have changed their religion and he has the audacity to reiterate his stand on oath even before this Court. The aforesaid conduct of the applicant is prejudicial to public order and it certainly is extremely disturbing," the Court further remarked.
Thus, stressing that the alleged offences are of a very serious nature, the Court rejected his bail plea.
Counsel for Applicant: Senior Advocate Jyotindra Mishra assisted by Advocate Dhirendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party: AGA-I Prem Prakash Singh assisted by State Counsel Shiv Prakash Singh
Case title - Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 181 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1340 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Click Here To Read/Download Order