Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Law Professor Accused Of Hurting Religious Sentiments

Denying the benefit of anticipatory bail, Justice Anil Verma observed that the Applicant has potential to disturb the communal harmony in the society since he is a Professor and is in a position to incite the minds of his students-

…from perusal of the statement of the complainant Brajendra Singh, Dipendra, Ravi Pratap, Devesh, Kushal and other witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. it appears that present applicant is the Professor making statement which promotes enmity, hatred and ill-will between different sections of society, which hurts sentiment of Hindu community; act of the present applicant can disturb the communal peace of the society;…present applicant is the Professor, who regularly teaches and delivers lectures to the students of the aforesaid Law College and being Professor he is in a position to incite the mind of the students…

Facts of the case were that the Applicant was a Professor at Law College in Indore teaching Constitutional Law. One of his students made filed a complaint against him before the police that the Applicant along with other co-accused was recommending the students to read a book named "Collective Violence and Criminal Justice System". It was alleged that the said book was based on false and baseless facts and that contained anti-national contents which intended to harm the public peace, integrity of the nation, and religious cordiality. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against the Applicant for offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 500, 504, 505, 505(2), 34 IPC.

Arguing his bail application, the Applicant submitted before the Court that he neither purchased nor recommended the said book. He was neither looking after the library section nor was he the member of the purchase committee during which the subject book was purchased. He asserted that the allegation levelled against him is baseless and without any substance and that he is being dragged into criminal proceedings with the ulterior motive to malice his reputation. He further pointed out that the police did not comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 41-A CrPC.

The Applicant also brought to the notice of the Court that one co-accused was granted stay on his arrest by the Apex Court and therefore, he was within his rights to claim parity with the respective co-accused. Thus, it was prayed that he be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail since no case was made out against him.

Per contra, the State argued that the act of the Applicant has the potential of provoking communal disharmony and promoting enmity between different groups on account of allegiance. Thus, it was submitted that he did not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court did not find it a case fit for grant of anticipatory bail. It noted that considering the statemented of witnesses under Section 164 CrPC, it appeared that the Applicant was making statement to stoke hatred and enmity among different communities and also hurt the sentiments of the Hindu Community.

Addressing the argument regarding claiming parity with the other co-accused, the Court held that the Supreme Court had not extended the benefit of stay on arrest of the Applicant. It further opined that the said co-accused was holding the administrative post of Principal of the College whereas the Applicant was a Professor who regularly taught students and was in a position to provoke them.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the application moved by the Applicant had no force and accordingly, the same was dismissed.

Case Title: MIRZA MOZIZ BEG VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 288

Click Here To Read/Download Order