Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Patiala House court in Delhi has stated that the law of sedition is a very powerful tool and it cannot be invoked to quieten the disquiet under the pretense of muzzling the miscreants. While granting bail to a person accused of sedition, Dharmender Rana, an additional sessions judge in the Patiala House Court, stated that the law of sedition can not be invoked in the absence of exhortation or incitement to create disturbance to the public or threaten public peace or resort to violence. The applicant who has applied for bail, in this case, is a 21-year-old laborer who was accused in an FIR registered for offenses under section 124A,505,468, and 471 of the IPC. The prosecution claimed that the accused posted a video on his Facebook which is allegedly fake. The police claimed that the video was about an incident in which a senior Delhi Police officer was briefing police officers at a protest site and urging them to handle the situation properly. But the accused posted it with a tagline saying there is a rebellion within the Delhi police and around 200 police officers have handed in resignation, hail the farmers. Among other factors, the accused requested bail on the basis that the content alleged against him was innocent in nature and was an individual issue shared in dissatisfaction with government policies.
It was contended by the prosecution that the accused does not deserve the court's indulgence, due to the severity of the charges. The accused not only made a sensational Facebook post with the intention of promoting disaffection against the State, but it is also alleged that he has committed forgery. With regard to the crime of forgery, the Court noted that the sine qua non for the same was the making of a false document.
The Court observed that a senior police officer of the Delhi Police was seen raising slogans, in a very aggressive tone, after personally watching the video in the courtroom. The Court also stated that the background voices indicated a very charged-up environment. It was also observed by the court that the accused is not the creator of the post, he has merely forwarded it. The court finally held that: the invocation of sedition just because of the tagline posted by the accused is a seriously debatable matter, but offense under section 505 of the IPC seems to be found. Such offense is bailable, the court granted bail to the accused by furnishing on him a bond of Rs.50,000.
86540
103860
630
114
59824