Munawar Faruqui Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Ad-Interim Bail to Nalin Yadav And Sadakat Khan

Faruqui, a resident of Gujarat, was arrested on 02^nd January along with four others (including Sadaqat Khan, Nalin Yadav) for allegedly making indecent remarks against Hindu deities and against Union Home Minister Amit Shah during a show held at a cafe in 56 Dukan area of Indore on January 1.

The complaint in this matter was filed by one Eklavya Singh Gaur, who happens to be the son of local BJP legislator Malini Laxman Singh Gaur.

Further, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) last month, while reserving orders on the bail application of comedian Munawar Faruqui had said,

"But why you take undue advantage of other's religious sentiments and emotions. What is wrong with your mindset? How can you do this for the purpose of your business?"

Subsequently, on 28^th January, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench dismissed the bail applications filed by comedian Munawar Faruqui and co- accused Nalin Yadav, who were arrested on January 2 for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during their comic show.

A single bench Justice Rohit Arya said that "no case is made out for grant of bail".

The Court said that it was not commenting on the merits of the case as the investigation was in progress. However, the materials collected so far suggested prima facie commission of the offence.

The judge noted in the order:

"The evidence/material collected so far, suggest that in an organized public show under the garb of standup comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicants."

Further, on 05^th February, the Supreme Court granted ad-interim bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui in a case registered by Madhya Pradesh police for alleged hurting of religious sentiments.

"The learned counsel has pointed out to us that quite apart from the fact that the allegations made in the FIR are vague that the procedure contained in Section 41 Cr.P.C. as adumbrated by our Judgment in "Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.", reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, has not been followed before arresting the petitioner. This being the case, we issue notice in both the petitions, and stay the Judgment of the High Court. The petitioner is released on ad-interim bail on conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court"