LI Network
Published on: December 13, 2023 at 11:23 IST
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant bail to an individual accused of disseminating hate speech against the Sikh community.
The court, presided over by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, deemed the words used by the accused as “heinous” and drew attention to the dark events of 1984, a tragic chapter in Indian history marked by widespread Sikh atrocities.
Justice Puri remarked, “This Court is reminded of one of the blackest and horrific moments in the history of India which happened in the year 1984. After the killing of the Prime Minister of India, this country witnessed riots across the country.
Thousands of people were killed and their respective families are suffering till date. Although this Court will confine itself only to the allegations made in the present FIR, the wording allegedly used by the petitioner and its tenor leaves no manner of doubt that it is not only serious but also heinous in nature.”
The accused, Rahul Sharma, faces charges under Sections 295-A, 298, 153-A, 506, and 34 IPC in Amritsar, Punjab. The court highlighted that Sharma not only used derogatory language against the Sikh community but also issued death threats.
These remarks were made during the hearing of Sharma’s second bail plea. The court took note of the petitioner’s apology video, stating that he had uploaded it in a fit of anger and argued that it was not intentional.
However, the court, after considering both sides, concluded that the allegations, involving the uploading of inflammatory content on social media and subsequent virality, were serious and heinous in nature.
The state counsel asserted that the purpose of the statements on social media was to incite riots among communities, a situation that the state successfully prevented.
Additionally, the court pointed out that Sharma is implicated in another FIR for setting a shop on fire. Emphasizing the potential for witness intimidation and evasion of justice, the court rejected the bail plea.
The petitioner’s counsel, Vivek Salathia, advocated for his release, asserting that Sharma had been in custody since May 2023, and the investigation was already complete.
In light of these developments, the court’s decision underscores the gravity of hate speech allegations and the potential consequences on communal harmony and social order. The case has been titled as Rahul Sharma v. State of Punjab