Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Journalist Accused In Hate Speech Case Targeting Purvanchal Community, Migrant Labours

In a significant order addressing allegations of hate speech and communal provocation, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail of a journalist accused of spreading inflammatory statements against Purvanchal Community and migrant labours.Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The complaint was supported by a memorandum signed by several other members of the Purvanchal community and the digital material produced during investigation prima facie indicate that the petitioner was instrumental in circulating content containing derogatory and inflammatory statements targeting specific groups. To borrow from the Speech Act Theory (propounded by Austin and Searle), utterances are required to be examined not just for their literal meaning but also for the communicative intention and action they convey. Every speech act involves a locutionary act (the word spoken), an illocutionary act (the speaker's intention) and a perlocutionary act (the effect on the audience)."The Court noted that the allegation in the present case is not only confined to roadside altercation but point towards the conduct which is capable of provoking communal disharmony which carries far graver implications.It further pointed the plea of the petitioner that he was named only in a supplementary statement is not sufficient to discard or dilute the material that has surfaced during the course of investigation.Justice Goel highlighted that the matter is not only serious but possesses the potential to disturb the public order and peace among the communities. At this stage, such material cannot be brushed aside as wholly unreliable and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would hamper the ongoing investigation and undermine the effort to maintain communal harmony.It is not oblivious of the fact that the offence of this nature not only affects the individual but also create of sense of insecurity in he community at large. Protection of such offenders at the stage of investigation would send a wrong signal to society and embolden others to indulge in similar unlawful activities, the bench added."The power under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is meant to protect innocent persons from unnecessary harassment and false implication but the same cannot be extended to those against whom there are prima facie serious allegations supported by material collected during investigation. The investigation is still in progress and the investigating agency is required to scrutinize the electronic evidence and the degree of complicity of the petitioner and others involved," it added.According to the FIR, the complainant, Braj Bhushan Singh, alleged that the petitioner, Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi, along with co-accused journalist Sushil Machan, routinely used abusive language against the Purvanchal community. The complaint, supported by a memorandum signed by several members of the community, accused the duo of insulting migrant labourers, issuing threats to roadside vendors, making derogatory statements about Purvanchal women, and delivering provocative speeches aimed at disturbing communal harmony.After hearing the submissions, the bench pointed that, the material collected during the course of investigation including the supplementary statement and the pen-drive produced by the complainant, indicates that the petitioner, being a journalist, circulated abusive and inflammatory remarks against the Purvanchal community, migrant labourers and women of that community.Perusing the FIR and the material collected during investigation, the judge said that, it indicates that the petitioner has circulated provocative interviews containing abusive and defamatory remarks against the Purvanchal community. Observing that "The investigation is still in progress and the investigating agency is required to scrutinize electronic evidence, ascertain the source of recordings and the degree of complicity of the petitioner and others involved. In these circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be said to be unnecessary," the plea was rejected.Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.Title: Sandeep Singh Attal @ Sandvi v. State of PunjabClick here to read order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Journalist Accused In Hate Speech Case Targeting Purvanchal Community, Migrant Labours

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags