'Incomprehensible How UAPA Invoked': Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To 'SFJ Members' Accused Of Writing 'Khalistan Zindabad' In A Public Place

The Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to two alleged operatives of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) accused of writing “Khalistan Zindabad” slogan on a wall in a public place in the state's Hanumangarh area.

Importantly, the Court observed that it was "not comprehensible" as to how the penal provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been invoked against the accused persons. The Court also added that no overwhelming circumstances were available to draw a presumption regarding the guilt of the accused.

With this, a bench of Justice Farjand Ali granted relief to the accused [Lovepreet Singh and Harmanpreet Singh] while noting that there is a high probability that the trial may take a long time to conclude and that further incarceration of the accused petitioners isn't necessary.

The accused, originally hailing from Punjab, were booked under Sections 153-A (promotion of communal disharmony), 153-B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of IPC and Sections 10(A) (Penalty for being member of an unlawful association) and 13(1)(A) (Punishment for unlawful activities) of UAPA and Section 66-F (Punishment for cyber terrorism) IT Act.

In its order, the High Court extensively referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208 wherein the top Court quashed a criminal case against a professor for his WhatsApp status criticising the abrogation of Article 370, describing it as a 'Black Day' for Jammu and Kashmir.

In the Javed Ahmad case (supra), quashing the criminal case against the accused professor under Section 153A of the IPC, the Apex Court had observed thus:

“Under the said guarantee, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir or, for that matter, every decision of the State. He has the right to say he is unhappy with any decision of the State…Describing the day the abrogation happened as a 'Black Day' is an expression of protest and anguish…This is an expression of his individual view and his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. It does not reflect any intention to do something which is prohibited under Section 153-A. At best, it is a protest, which is a part of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).”

The High Court granted bail to accused on the accused furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

Advocate Amit Gaur appeared for the petitioners.

Case title - Lovepreet Singh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1510/2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 86

Click Here To Read/Download Order