Hurting religious sentiments: Accused gets pre-arrest bail

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 20

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a case of hurting religious feelings under Section 295A of the IPC after the Bench, among other things, was told that Section 295AA had not been incorporated for the state of Punjab.

Pursuant to an order passed by the High Court on September 14 last year, an affidavit, dated September 20, 2021, executed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, was placed before the Bench.

The affidavit stated that Section 295AA had not been incorporated in the IPC as on September 20, 2021, by the state of Punjab as the “assent of the President of India to ‘The Code of Criminal Procedure (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2018’ and ‘The Indian Penal Code (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2018’ has not been received.”

The state counsel, during the course of the hearing, submitted that the Bill had been passed and sent to the President for assent. However, it was returned on the grounds that it did not take into consideration holy scripture other than Shri Guru Granth Sahib.

The state counsel added that as per his instructions, all other holy scriptures of all major religions in India were incorporated in the Bill. However, he had still not been instructed as to whether the Bill had finally received the President’s assent and stood incorporated in the IPC at least qua the state of Punjab.

The Bench, in a previous order, had then observed that the issue of anticipatory bail being inadmissible in all circumstances, in view of the proposed amendment by way of Section 295AA to the IPC regarding the state of Punjab was not an issue any longer in view of the affidavit by the Principal Secretary.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj asserted that the question before the court was whether the concession of anticipatory bail was to be extended to the petitioner. Once the state was satisfied with the petitioner’s conduct of having joined investigation and no longer required for custody, the purpose would not be served by directing his custodial detention.

“Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required, the present petition is allowed and the interim order, dated September 22, 2021, is made absolute. However, if required, the petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required to do so and shall abide by the terms and conditions, as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC,” Justice Bhardwaj concluded.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.