Delhi HC Grants Transit Bail To Man Accused Of Spreading Hate Against Nagaland People On Instagram
The Delhi High Court granted transit bail to a person accused of spreading communal hatred, enmity and disharmony by posting a video on social media pertaining to the people in Nagaland.
The Court said that while the act of the applicant may have the impact of maligning the people residing in Nagaland, the same prima facie does not appear to be for the reason that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
The Court was hearing a Bail Application seeking grant of bail in FIR registered for the offences under Sections 153A/153B/505(1) & (2) of the IPC, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r)/(s)/(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “…social media post, while offensive to certain communities, does not appear to target individuals based on their caste or tribal identity.”
Advocate Sumit Mishra appeared for the Appellant and ASC Amol Sinha appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It was alleged in FIR that the Applicant made a social media post inciting communal hatred and targeting members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Nagaland Police arrested the Applicant from his residence however, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act denied transit remand and granted interim bail for 10 days. The Applicant's arrest is claimed to be illegal due to non-compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC, as no prior notice was served.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. NCT of Delhi (2020) where according to the SC the Court enunciated the approach of ‘transit anticipatory bail’ and ‘interim protection’ that balanced the right to life and personal liberty under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India with the fundamental scheme of administration of criminal justice, as prescribed in the CrPC.
The Court observed, “The purpose of interim protection in the form of transit bail is to allow the accused to approach the appropriate Court that has jurisdiction over the matter. It cannot be ignored that in an age where the movement of a citizen is frequent and fast, an offender may apprehend arrest even with respect to a complaint made by the complainant in one State, though the offended person may be residing in another State.”
The Court further mentioed the decision in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2023 where according to the Court it was held, “every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”
The Court also noted, “Forum conveniens allow a court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction when another forum is more appropriate to resolve the dispute, thus preventing parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions. Additionally, the principle of judicial comity—mutual respect between courts of equal standing—encourages courts to avoid conflicting rulings, particularly in cases of shared jurisdiction, to uphold fairness in the judicial process.”
The Court, however, dismissed the Petition seeking quashing of FIR.
Cause Title: Akash Tanwar v. State of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 8099)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Sumit Mishra, Ankit Siwach, Kapil Tanwar and Pawan Gupta
Respondent: ASC Amol Sinha, ASC Rupali Bandhopadhya, Advocates Kshitiz Garg, Abhijeet Kumar, K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Prang Newmai and Chubalemla Chang