Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The High Court of Karnataka rejected the bail application of a software engineer yesterday, who allegedly put up a post on Facebook encouraging people to spread the coronavirus. The post read as, ‘let’s join hands, go out and sneeze in the public places’. The post even expressly stated, “Spread the virus.” The court remarked that such a post threatened integrity and sovereignty of the country.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the provision under which his client is accused is section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which makes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony offences. He contended that for such an offence the maximum punishment is imprisonment of 3 years, therefore his client is entitled to bail. He further assured the judge that the petitioner would cooperate with the officials for investigation.
The counsel on behalf of the state contended that punishment for an offence is not the sole criteria of grating bail; nature and gravity of the offence needs to be taken into consideration as well. He further contended that the petitioner may be having connection with the unorganized terrorist groups, which could only be known from the investigation. Therefore, he shouldn’t be granted bail.
The bench observed that the bail was sought on mental health condition of the petitioner but all the reports to support the same were issued by a private practitioner. Further, when the court proposed to send the petitioner to NIMHANS for evaluation of his mental health, the counsel on his behalf declined such proposal.
The court noted that based on the investigation officer’s report and case diary the message posted by the petitioner is likely to cause disharmony, hatred and hostility to humanity. The bench held that “sovereignty, fraternity and integrity of the country take precedence over Article 21, the fundamental right of liberty…”The bench declared that the bail can’t be granted merely on the basis that the offences quoted in the FIR do not carry punishment beyond three years.
The court rejected the bail application but granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition once the charge sheet is filed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824