Bombay High Court Reserves Order In Plea By Political Worker Arrested For Social Media Posts On State Minister Chandrakant Patil

The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan also directed the police not to file charge sheet against Kudale in the meantime.

The FIR, registered at Kothrud Police Station, alleged that Kudale promoted enmity between different groups through his video posted on social media against minister Chandrakant Patil for his comments regarding Dr. BR Ambedkar and Jyotiba Phule. Kudale had uploaded posts on social media after the ink attack on on the Minister of Higher and Technical Education. It was further alleged that Kudale filmed a video standing outside Patil's house and the posts created an atmosphere of contempt against him.

Kudale was arrested for offences under sections 153A(1)(a) and 153A(1)(b) on December 11, 2022, by the Pune Police.

Advocate Subodh Desai for Kudale submitted that the FIR is mala fide, and the alleged offences are not made out. He also said identical FIRs were registered against Kudale.

The bench asked the state whether it took action against the person with whose statement the situation originated. "Who is the originator of this? You are saying that could have caused the retaliation", the court said.

Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf for the state submitted that the FIRs are not identical. He said that the first FIR was registered on a complaint after the police assessed the ground situation. Referring to state-wide protests after Patil’s comments, he submitted that the situation was volatile and “police acted their best to curb it”.

The bench then said, “Who is responsible for inciting the situation? If your argument is to be accepted, you have to see who was responsible for the entire situation.”

The bench said it will consider whether prima facie offence is made out under Section 153A IPC and whether the FIR registered at Kothrud Police Station was without application of mind. It pointed out that the Supreme Court in various judgements has said that registering FIR has serious consequences.

The bench asked the state why notice under section 41A Cr.P.C., was not issued and whether it was not required. It asked the state how the posts caused disharmony between different religious groups and created a situation which required adding section 153A of the IPC.

The court also remarked that the police are expected to uphold procedure before taking a ‘drastic step’ of arrest. 

An FIR was also registered against Kudale at Warje Malwadi Police Station and Kothrud Police station under Sections 153A(1)(a), 153A(1)(b) and 505(2) IPC. Another FIR was registered against him and his wife for section 353 IPC (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging duty).

In his plea, Kudale argued that there is a possibility of false implication because of political vendetta as the complainant is a member of BJP and Kudale is a member of Congress Party.

The petition states that the alleged enmity must be caused among two or more communities however the mere mention of another community is not sufficient to attract section 153A.

Further, there was no mens rea to cause disharmony between different groups and community of people, according to Kudale’s petition.

Case no. – WPST/21880/2022

Case Title – Sandeep Kudale v. State of Maharashtra