'Court Is Reminded Of Horrific 1984 Sikh Atrocities', Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Hate Speech Against Sikhs

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant bail to a man who was booked for spreading hate speech against Sikh Community, observing that the words used by the accused are “henious”.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, “This Court is reminded of one of the blackest and horrific moments in the history of India which happened in the year 1984. After the killing of the Prime Minister of India, this country witnessed riots across the country. Thousands of people were killed and their respective families are suffering till date. Although this Court will confine itself only to the allegations made in the present FIR, the wording allegedly used by the petitioner and its tenor leaves no manner of doubt that it is not only serious but also heinous in nature.”

The Court noted that the bad names were also used for the Sikh Community and that the accused gave death threats.

These observations were made while hearing the second bail plea of one Rahul Sharma who was accused under Sections 295-A, 298, 153- A, 506 & 34 IPC at Amritsar, Punjab.

According to FIR, Sharma had uploaded his video on social media wherein he was giving death threats and spreading hate speech against the Sikh community. However, later he made another video to apologise, the plea stated.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he is in custody since May, 2023 and the investigation has also been completed. 

He further submitted that the petitioner had uploaded the aforesaid video in a fit of anger and it was not intentional. 

After hearing both sides, the Court opined that the “Such kind of contents of the FIR pertaining to the allegations which were uploaded on the internet by the petitioner himself and thereafter, made viral by one Journalist, are certainly serious and heinous in nature.”

It further noted that the state counsel has submitted that the purpose of making such a statement on the social media was to cause riots among the communities which was duly prevented by the State.

The Court also noted that the accused is also booked in another FIR for setting a shop on fire.

Stating that, “considering the aforesaid allegations in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he may even intimidate and influence the witnesses and may abscond from justice carries weight and cannot be ignored,” the Court rejected the relief of bail.

Appearance: Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

G.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, Advocate, for the complainant.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 268

Title: Rahul Sharma v. State of Punjab