Threats To Bakery Owner To Remove "Halal Food" Sticker : Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Accused

Though the petitioners were booked for wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot and criminal intimidation [Sections 153 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC)] which are bailable offences, the Court noted that their apprehensions of being booked for the non-bailable offences of Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC were reasonable.

Justice Ashok Menon noted,

"Even though Section 153-A or 295-A IPC is not incorporated in the FIR, the recitals in the F.I.R indicate that the act of the applicants was intended to promote disharmony between two religious' groups. Under the circumstances, there is a possibility of incorporating those non-bailable offences in the FIR. The apprehension of arrest expressed by the applicants is therefore, reasonable."

The facts

The prosecution alleged that the accused one evening wantonly provoked the owner of a certain Modi Bakery at Kurumassery junction for exhibiting a sticker to the effect that halal food is being served in the bakery.

It was also asserted that the applicants intimidated one of his employees, serving a notice threatening boycott of the bakery and protests by the group if the bakery continued to exhibit the sticker. It was also stated that the notice was printed on a sheet with the letterhead of 'Hindu Aikyavedi'.

What the parties argued

The applicants for pre-arrest bail asserted that the bakery's location Parakadavu panchayat, had only 7 Muslim families out of a total population of 36,000.

The staff of the bakery informed the 2nd applicant that they only sold halal food in the bakery. At this, the 2^nd applicant insisted that the sticker should have stated that only 'halal food' was being served.

"The bakery cannot force halal food on Hindus residing in that area and that is the reason why the applicants insisted on removing the sticker and intimated that they would protest such activities of the bakery", the applicants submitted.

The applicants additionally informed the Court that the sticker at the bakery was immediately removed and the crime against them was registered at the behest of political parties.

Since they apprehended the incorporation of Sections 153A and Section 295A of the IPC, they moved the Court for anticipatory bail, it was averred.

The offences alleged against the applicants at present are only under Sections 153 and 506 IPC. Both the offences are bailable and hence, application under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. But the applicants apprehend that the non-bailable Sections of 153A and 295A IPC may be incorporated with the intention to incarcerate the applicants.

During proceedings in Court, Senior Public Prosecutor Santhosh Peter did not deny the possibility of Sections 153A and 295A IPC being incorporated in the FIR.

What the Court held

After a discussion of Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC, the Court found that a reading of the FIR did not indicate that the applicants did any act to promote hatred between two groups.

However, the recitals in the F.I.R indicated that the act of the applicants was intended to promote disharmony between two religious' groups, the Court emphasised.

Regarding Section 153A, the Court said,

"In order to attract an offence punishable under Section 153-A IPC the accused must by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, or grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground, whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or caste or communities, or commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity."

In respect of the offence under Section 295-A, the Court also stated,

"..there must be a deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs."

Opining that the apprehension of arrest expressed by the applicants is therefore, reasonable, the Court concluded that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Therefore, the Court directed that the applicants be released on bail with execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties of the same amount.

Advocates E.S.Soni, R.Krishna Raj, and Kumari Sangeetha S. Nair argued for the applicants.

Advocates Enoch David Simon Joel, S.Sreedev, Rony Jose, Cimil Cherian Kottalil represented the owner of the bakery.